SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
05-02-22, 10:13 PM | #3406 | |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
Quote:
Seems to me that if the Biden administration intended to do their job the southern border would not be awash with illegal aliens.
__________________
Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
|
05-03-22, 03:20 AM | #3407 |
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
Wasn't there someone who promised to close the borders, and make Mexico pay for it?
But then maybe all illegal aliens should leave.. from 1600 AD on. Very thin ice, i know
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. |
05-03-22, 05:22 AM | #3408 | |
Soaring
|
Drip... drip... drip...
Quote:
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
|
|
05-03-22, 03:00 PM | #3409 |
Seasoned Skipper
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Freeman Missouri
Posts: 1,744
Downloads: 1375
Uploads: 0
|
That wouldn't bother me since I got Cherokee in me
__________________
I'll tell you what bravery really is. Bravery is just determination to do a job that you know has to be done. Audie Murphy |
05-03-22, 03:40 PM | #3410 |
Soaring
|
Neue Zürcher Zeitung correctly analyzes:
If the leaked draft corresponds to the final ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the abortion issue, it would mean a political earthquake. After decades of bitter dispute, it would make history of "Roe v. Wade," a nearly fifty-year-old landmark decision whose fame is probably surpassed only by the rulings on equality for African Americans. Not surprisingly, it restricts abortion rights. After the Supreme Court received a clear conservative majority a year and a half ago with the third vacancy to be filled by Donald Trump, this was to be expected. What is more astonishing is the radicalism with which the justices overturned "Roe v. Wade." The draft speaks of a ruling that was "egregiously wrong from the outset," "extraordinarily weak reasoning," and damaging consequences. Indeed, the decision at the time, with its very broad liberalization, has weaknesses that fueled rather than resolved the conflict over abortion. Nevertheless, the choice of words is remarkable for a precedent that has been confirmed several times and is of great importance in the Anglo-Saxon system in terms of legal certainty. Abortions remain legal in only half of the states The judges are thus likely to refrain from a compromise that the case to be judged would basically allow. It concerns a Mississippi law that allows abortions up to 15 weeks. To declare that provision permissible would be to curtail "Roe," but would still mean a liberal provision by international standards. In the U.S., 93 percent of abortions are performed before that time. Chief Justice John Roberts is likely to favor this solution, experts say. But it would not end the wrangling over what is perhaps the most important issue in the American culture war. To that extent, an outright repeal of Roe v. Wade is the more consistent step. The consequences, however, would probably be more serious in theory than in practice. Abortion would no longer be regulated at the national level, but fifty different state laws would come into force. This is not unusual in the distinctly federal United States. In anticipation of a change in jurisdiction, thirteen conservative states have already enacted so-called trigger laws that will ban abortions with the end of "Roe." According to the non-governmental organization Guttmacher Institute, thirteen more states are certain or likely to ban the procedure in the future. Only in just under half of the states would abortions remain permitted, according to the report. In a country of this size, this is undoubtedly a problem and an anachronistic step backward for women's right to self-determination. However, the possibilities for abortion in conservative regions have already been narrowly limited by constant tightening of the law. In six states, for example, there is only one abortion clinic, which forced women to travel long distances. In progressive states such as Illinois, gynecological practices have sprung up in close proximity to states with practical bans. Organizations that advocate for women's freedom of choice pay for the travel expenses of needy pregnant women and can now count on a flood of donations. Even various companies have announced that they will cover the corresponding expenses of their female employees. Finally, more than half of all abortions are now induced by medication, with the possibility of procuring the necessary tablets legally or illegally from another member state or from abroad. Nevertheless, there are likely to be hardship cases with occasionally even fatal consequences. They will primarily affect poor women and thus disproportionately often members of ethnic minorities. None of this changes the outcry that the draft ruling has triggered among advocates of liberal abortion rights in the United States. The fact that it was made public prematurely is unprecedented and is likely to shake the court permanently. It has been careful to maintain secrecy and cooperation based on trust - also to counter the accusation of politicization that has been raised with increasing frequency in recent years. Only a small and exclusive circle of judges and their closest associates could have access to the draft. Who had an interest in the leak, presumably in order to steer the verdict in another direction, is an open question. What is certain, however, is that this drags the Supreme Court into the maelstrom of partisan politics. This is enormously damaging to the court's reputation - and thus to the acceptance of its decisions. This will already be noticeable in June, when the judges will pass their final verdict on the abortion issue. Whatever the outcome: For part of the country, it will be a purely political decision, which will be compromised accordingly. For the Supreme Court, it will be a debacle. It will only fuel the controversy that the draft says it is trying to settle with the end of Roe v. Wade. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) Rumors say that the Disunited States of America intend to deepen their gaps and trenches considerably in the near future by boosting the digging activities. The NRA will be happy - too much harmony spoils the business, and in the end people die of boredom: then they don't buy anything anymore.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
|
05-03-22, 03:42 PM | #3411 | |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
Quote:
There was, and other people managed to obstruct and hamstring the Dude enough that it prevented him from fulfilling his promise. It takes a village you know.
__________________
Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
|
05-03-22, 03:44 PM | #3412 |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
A much more interesting article:
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...court-leak?s=r The Shocking Supreme Court Leak And our race to the bottom. Bari Weiss In March, we ran a piece by the reporter Aaron Sibarium called “The Takeover of America’s Legal System.” The story made the case, backed up by exhaustive reporting, that just as education and the press and medicine were being transformed from within, so too, was the law. And those who comforted themselves with the notion that the law would be a bulwark against the new dogma were in for a rude awakening. Aaron showed that the young lawyers who were entering the most elite legal institutions in the country—law firms and law schools and courts—didn’t necessarily share the ethos of those institutions. In fact, many of them explicitly seek to revolutionize them. My thoughts immediately went to this story when I saw the shocking headline last night by Politico: The Supreme Court plans to overturn Roe. We know that because someone leaked what appears to be an initial draft of the majority opinion of a decision that was expected to land in late June. You can read the entire thing here. The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, holds that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” It goes on: “We hold that Roe and Casey”—the 1992 decision that upheld Roe, which passed in 1973—“must be overruled.” More: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Less than two hours after Politico dropped the story, CNN reported that Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to overturn Roe, but was willing to uphold the Mississippi law that would ban abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Who knows what could leak next. From what I can see, this is a shattering event on three levels. Substantively, politically, and institutionally. Substantively. If indeed this draft opinion becomes the law, what will it mean for American women to live in a country where Roe is overturned and abortion is kicked back to the states? What will it mean practically? What would it mean for women in the 13 states where abortion would become immediately illegal? What would it mean for the doctors who perform those abortions, including in cases of rape and incest? Or in the case of ectopic pregnancies? And other unthinkable questions. Politically. The most obvious take here is that the Democrats were in for a bruising in the midterms and this was leaked by a liberal to galvanize Democrats. Galvanize how? Perhaps to get voters to turn out as if their lives depended on it. Perhaps to pass a law before the midterms legalizing abortion. (Here’s Bernie Sanders on Twitter last night: “Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”) Perhaps to reanimate the case for court-packing. Institutionally. I know several people who have clerked for the Court. And because I am, like every journalist, utterly and shamelessly nosy, I have pressed all of them to share their personal anecdotes about the mysterious men and women in black robes. Sure, they’d share fun details about pick-up basketball, or the famously warm relationship between Scalia and RBG. Maybe, years after the fact, they’d tell a highly curated, well-rehearsed story. But the idea of breathing a word about the actual workings of the court, about a decision that had not yet been made public—that would have appalled every single one of these people, liberal and conservative alike. How did we go from that ethos to a world in which—leaving the possibility of some kind of Russian or Chinese hack, or a more banal security breach, or someone pulling the draft from the garbage—one or more clerks are undermining the institution itself? (That question is the same whether the leaker was a liberal enraged about the decision, or, less obviously, a conservative, perhaps trying to firm up a fifth vote or somehow pressure the chief justice.) On the question of abortion—its morality and its legality—I do not think there is a better piece that has been written than on the subject than this one by Caitlin Flanagan. It’s called “The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate” and I urge you to read it. And, if you haven’t yet, please listen to the conversation I had with Caitlin about abortion on Honestly, which captures where I sit on this fraught issue. Perhaps you feel torn. Most Americans do: A majority of Americans consistently say they do not want Roe to be overturned . . . and yet a majority of Americans also favor some restrictions on abortion. According to Gallup, less than 30 percent of Americans say that abortion should “generally be legal” in the second trimester. All of which suggests that few people have actually read Roe. On the question of politics, and the hideous ways this leak and the decision itself will play out, there will surely be much more to say in the coming days. (As I write, the crowd gathered outside the Court is chanting, “Fascist scum have got to go.”) This leak is tremendous news for Democrats, who would spend every moment until the midterms promising to overturn this ruling (and running away from the subject of inflation). To my mind, though, the question of what this leak means for the institution of the Supreme Court is the most profound one. That is because it captures, in a single act, what I believe is the most important story of our moment: the story of how American institutions became a casualty in the culture war. The story of how no institution is immune. Not our universities, not our medical schools, not legacy media, not technology behemoths, not the federal bureaucracy. Not even the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court was always the most cloistered governmental institution in America—the one where wisdom and precedent and reverence for our great constitutional tradition outweighed everything else. If there was something sacred that remained, this was it. Yes, there have been leaks from the Court before. But as Politico pointed out, last night’s leak was historic, and not in a good way: “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.” I called up one of the smartest professors I know at one of the top law schools in the country, and he echoed that: “To my knowledge, it’s never happened before in the modern history of the court. It is the most serious possible breach.” Serious, severe, shocking, he said. But in the end, not surprising. Why not? Here’s how he put it: “To me, the leak is not surprising because many of the people we’ve been graduating from schools like Yale are the kind of people who would do such a thing.” What did he mean by that? “They think that everything is violence. And so everything is permitted.” He went on: “I’m sure this person sees themselves as a whistleblower. What they don’t understand is that, by leaking this, they violate the trust that is necessary to maintain the institution.” Perhaps some of you feel that the institution had already been betrayed. That the Court, long before this leak or this explosive decision, had already been diminished. Maybe the refusal to consider Merrick Garland put you over the edge. Or maybe it was the revelations about Clarence Thomas’s wife and January 6th. Or maybe it was the Kavanaugh hearings. How he was grilled. Or that he was nominated. Or maybe it was earlier: Bush v. Gore or Anita Hill or Robert Bork. This feels different than all of that. Why? Because all of those other instances were moments of outrage bookended by long periods of sobriety and seriousness. They were the exceptions that proved the rule. Now, everything seems to have been turned upside down, and the outrage, the uncontrollable or unslakable partisan fury, seems to have overtaken everything. Our sense of history, our respect for the institution, for norms, for even more basic human things: like trust, devotion, privacy, integrity. Jonathan Turley put it this way late last night: “There appears no ethical rule or institutional interest that can withstand this age of rage.” To the jaded and hardened who have already crossed over into this new age—an age in which power and winning are the only tests of virtue, and the old ideas, like civility and respect, now seem twee—the leak might seem normal or even necessary. But it is nothing more than the most recent salvo in our race to the bottom.
__________________
Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
05-03-22, 04:34 PM | #3413 | |
Rear Admiral
|
Quote:
It amazed me that Democrats seemed to me to be the loudest and most obnoxious of those who protested the idea of building a wall in Texas. Considering Democrats in California already have a wall which stretches from the Pacific Ocean into Arizona and continues to invest in its maintenance. In fact the Cali wall works so well that human traffickers attempt to go around the fence via the high seas in what we call launchas to smuggle people into the U.S. I guess when the Vice President of the United States said: “Don’t come” she just meant don’t come to California because there’s a wall there. Texas is OK though they don’t have one.
__________________
Extradite Deez Nutz in your mouth Commissioner Mark Rowley you fascist pig. Make 1984 fiction again. Last edited by Rockstar; 05-03-22 at 08:09 PM. |
|
05-04-22, 08:33 PM | #3414 |
Shark above Space Chicken
|
Too educated....
__________________
"However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie |
05-04-22, 09:59 PM | #3415 |
Rear Admiral
|
Ya that’s what he says.
Wages stagnant, inflation continues to rise, congress continues to print money and spend, a war in Euroasia has the potential to expand into a conflict between NATO and Russia. And buffoons like this guy keep trying to place an entire population of voters into one box because of one man’s opinion. Which was most likely taken out of context to get likes anyway. Honestly are either you really that concerned what’s happening in Florida or are you just desperately trying to convince yourselves things are so much better in your own state? If it matters so much why don’t you both register to vote in Florida?
__________________
Extradite Deez Nutz in your mouth Commissioner Mark Rowley you fascist pig. Make 1984 fiction again. Last edited by Rockstar; 05-04-22 at 10:18 PM. |
05-04-22, 10:19 PM | #3416 |
Ocean Warrior
|
I have a way to fix all of this, but its never been popular.
Basically, recognize that it takes two to tango then take the burden off the women. When a male turns 13, they have to report to a federal health clinic to get a vasectomy. Its just like the draft only with a bag of frozen peas. OK, you say, what about the birth rate? No problem, if you want kids and you're in a stable relationship (for example, you've been married for five years) and you have money in the bank to support the child(ren) and you pass the medical tests that say you would father a healthy child, you go to court with proof of your relationship and some pay stubs and medical records. If the court agrees, you get the vasectomy reversed until you have enough children to make you happy. Then, you go back for another vasectomy. This plan would work. It would just be a pain in the balls. |
05-04-22, 10:20 PM | #3417 |
Shark above Space Chicken
|
Re: Rockstar. So instead of addressing what he has to say you attack his credibility. I guess I'm too educated to get it.
__________________
"However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie |
05-04-22, 10:26 PM | #3418 | |
Shark above Space Chicken
|
Quote:
__________________
"However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie |
|
05-04-22, 10:27 PM | #3419 | |
Rear Admiral
|
I just did.
Quote:
__________________
Extradite Deez Nutz in your mouth Commissioner Mark Rowley you fascist pig. Make 1984 fiction again. |
|
05-04-22, 10:28 PM | #3420 |
Ocean Warrior
|
I missed the part where you were out in the fields picking lettuce.
|
|
|