SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Typhonis]

I wonder what would happen if someone tweeted "Gun control is racist. Change my mind." How much salt would flow?

 

[BlackDragon98]

I wonder what would happen if someone tweeted "Gun control is racist. Change my mind." How much salt would flow?

It was.

There was a concerted effort to prevent blacks from owning guns in the South back in the bad old days.

Why?

So the Democrat party's pet racists (KKK) could lynch them more easily.

I would like to see some of that salt tho.

So much salt, i gonna start selling it for money.

 

[Sobek]

Same thing applied to Native Americans, and some immigrant groups.

Gun Control in the USA didn't start pushing the "think of the Children!" shit until the 70's

 

[S'task]

There was a concerted effort to prevent blacks from owning guns in the South back in the bad old days.

Wasn't just in the South. The New York law that was just struck down was pretty much explicitly one of those kinds of Gun Control Laws when it was passed. It just didn't say it explicitly.

 

[Bacle]

Well we knew he was planning to, and it seems all the decisions for this term have been reached.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

And now we get the affirmative action appointee...yippee.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The pedo defender.

 

[BlackDragon98]

And now we get the affirmative action appointee...yippee.

we get the roastie hoe.

AA is the dumbest thing ever.

If you good enough, you get in.

Like Justice Thomas, the SUPREME JUSTICE OF MAGA.

 

[Jormungandr]

we get the roastie hoe.

AA is the dumbest thing ever.

If you good enough, you get in.

Like Justice Thomas, the SUPREME JUSTICE OF MAGA.

I've never agreed with affirmative action. I don't care if you're male, female, straight, or gay: if you can do the job, that is what counts.

Hiring someone because they're Black or gay and they're fucking useless or incompetent at the job over the straight White guy/girl who is competent/more experienced? Yeah, that's just wrong.

 

[Stargazer]

Hey now. At least KBJ doesn't think too highly of herself, she doesn't presume to be a biologist.

 

[King Arts]

Soldiers can be charged with damaging federal property for attacking another soldier.
Article 108 of the UCMJ, and within the explanation federal property is things or personnel.

The soldier os government property. The government owns them.

for insyance if you live in a house off post as a soldier, you can still have your command come and check on you eithout a warrant. Because that is how it works.

the military isnnot the civilian world. On base the UCMJ is the law of the land.

On base maybe, but your command can’t go to search your house without a warrant, or let me clear that up they can search YOUR property, but if other people live there they can bar them from entrance. Other people don’t give up constitutional rights because they live with soldiers.

You do know he still committed adultery...
If he had proof she did it all he would have to do it report it to the MPs, and have her tried for adultery.

Did he report it? Did he try to do anything?

Did he go to the IG?

Isn’t actually punishing someone for adultery in the army rare? Like it happens but unless you are fucking your commander or Sgt’s wife people won’t care.

It's the UCMJ, and IG and JAG are separate entities......

But I should note that the second the female married a service member she is a to fall under the UCMJ...

Umm no they don’t again people whose spouses join the army don’t have to salute or obey superiors and all that you only lose rights by agreeing to join the constitution. I mean if you have proof otherwise I’m willing to look at it.

 

[Zachowon]

On base maybe, but your command can’t go to search your house without a warrant, or let me clear that up they can search YOUR property, but if other people live there they can bar them from entrance. Other people don’t give up constitutional rights because they live with soldiers.


Isn’t actually punishing someone for adultery in the army rare? Like it happens but unless you are fucking your commander or Sgt’s wife people won’t care.


Umm no they don’t again people whose spouses join the army don’t have to salute or obey superiors and all that you only lose rights by agreeing to join the constitution. I mean if you have proof otherwise I’m willing to look at it.

You still have to obey the UCMJ if you are married to a soldier.
At least certain ones....
Because guess what, you are apart of that soldiers life.
And no the command can't be bared because you willing let a soldier into your house. Therefore it is not searchable. Less searchable and more they can make sure it is clean.

I am done with this hear for right now

 

[DarthOne]

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth - LifeNews.com

Californians will vote in November on a measure to enshrine the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to birth in their state constitution. On Monday, the state Assembly voted 58-16 in favor of the pro-abortion Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 10). The amendment passed...

www.lifenews.com

Californians will vote in November on a measure to enshrine the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to birth in their state constitution.

On Monday, the state Assembly voted 58-16 in favor of the pro-abortion Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 10). The amendment passed the state Senate earlier this month, and will be on the ballot for voters’ consideration Nov. 8.
Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, described the amendment as “barbaric,” saying it would allow unborn babies to be aborted through all nine months of pregnancy.

“SCA 10 is extreme, even for a state like California,” Keller said. “Many people who identify as pro-choice still reject the idea of abortions ending the lives of viable children late in pregnancy.”

Sponsored by state Senate pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, state Senate Constitutional Amendment 10, would add the following language to the California Constitution: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

Pro-abortion lawmakers avoided questions Monday about the amendment allowing viable, late-term unborn babies to be aborted for any reason.

According to Cal Matters, Assemblymember Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, asked if the amendment would end the current state limit on late-term abortions and allow unborn babies to be aborted for any reason “up to the moment of birth.”

He never received a direct answer. State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon paused and then promised to answer the question in his closing statement, but he never did, according to the California Family Council.

State Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes, D-Corona, did not answer Kiley’s question either, instead responding, “This bill just ensures that all Californians enjoy reproductive freedoms, and that they have the ability to make these decisions themselves.”
Pro-life advocates have been speaking out against the amendment at legislative committee meetings and urging voters to reject it in November.

Last week, Kellee Bradford, who had five abortions as a young woman, told a state Senate Judiciary Committee that abortion is so common and promoted so openly in California that many women do not know where to turn for support if they want to keep their baby.

“Abortion is not health care. It has left me and millions of women broken, regretful, ashamed, depressed and some even suicidal,” she told lawmakers. “It’s a temporary solution to a much bigger problem. … SCA 10 is going to make the problem even worse.”

Others speaking out against the proposal include the California Family Council and California Catholic Conference. They warned that the amendment is so extreme that it would allow unborn babies to be aborted up to birth.

“The sad reality is that California already has some of the most accommodating abortion laws and services in the nation,” the state Catholic bishops said in a statement opposing the bill. “And by providing extensive funding for abortion services without any corresponding equitable funding for pregnant women and mothers, the state exercises a destructive, coercive power in favor of ending innocent lives.”

California already has very few limits on abortion, and state Democrat leaders are working to expand the killing of unborn babies even more. It has the largest number of abortion facilities in the country at 168; New York is second with 89, according to a new ANSIRH study.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to spend an additional $145 million this year specifically on abortions. The money would be used to fund elective abortions for women whose insurance does not cover it, government promotion of abortion, travel and lodging expenses for women who have to travel for abortions and incentives for medical students to become abortionists.

The money could go a long way toward actually helping mothers and babies in need, such as expanding prenatal care and other basic medical care that helps reduce infant and maternal mortality, financial and housing assistance, education, counseling and more. But the California leader wants to use it for abortions instead.

Newsom said abortion is one of California’s “values,” and he will “fight like hell” to “protect it.” He also wants California to become an abortion destination for women in states that are expected to ban the killing of unborn babies in abortions now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned.

California has forced taxpayers to pay for elective abortions for many years, and young girls can get abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. A new law slated to go into effect next year will force all public colleges and universities to provide abortions on campus. Newsom and Democrat lawmakers also are working closely with the abortion industry to expand abortions in other ways.

California abortion facilities reported 132,680 abortions in 2017, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

 

[Stargazer]

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth - LifeNews.com

Californians will vote in November on a measure to enshrine the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to birth in their state constitution. On Monday, the state Assembly voted 58-16 in favor of the pro-abortion Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 10). The amendment passed...

www.lifenews.com

Pure evil. May God have mercy on us for the culture of death in California.

 

[Cherico]

Pure evil. May God have mercy on us for the culture of death in California.

Im just waiting for the collapse to hit us.

We cant improve things here until we are forced to deal with reality.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Welp, officially crossing CA off as a tourist destination.

HAHAH! Whom I kidding!? I did that years ago!

 

[Cherico]

Welp, officially crossing CA off as a tourist destination.

HAHAH! Whom I kidding!? I did that years ago!

 

[ATP]

Pure evil. May God have mercy on us for the culture of death in California.

Yes,it is satanism.I pity them,lord they choosed is not nice one,not mention that he arleady lost.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Pure evil. May God have mercy on us for the culture of death in California.

the San Andreas Fault will explode in the shape of a cross.

Just like how a bolt of lightning blew up the george floyd mural

mark my words.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

the San Andreas Fault will explode in the shape of a cross.

Just like how a bolt of lightning blew up the george floyd mural

mark my words.

Wait what?