We are all Slave now.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So we all agree Kavanaugh was correct. Kumbayah.

Re your question, I asked similar one about strip club employees a few months ago, and was told that, yes, if it part of the job.

Unrelatedly, I dont read as many blogs as some of you, but the story I am seeing in the MSM and hearing on NPR is the DNA tests are intended to correctly reunite child with parent.

But I think they are also intended to try to prove that illegal immigrants / asylum seekers are ferrying children to whom they are not family. If so, (1) are they wrong to so inquire (I think not); but (2) they were stupid to separate them and lose the chain of custody.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Apparently, you never had a chance - https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anth...73ecf/?ref=yfp

Why was she the "home run"? Faith again? You never responded to my earlier questions? If so, that is the opposite of originalism. It is rank "my indefensible beliefs Trump your rational positions."

As others said earlier, will you accept that "state's rights" mean a State can make a woman abort? Can the Constitution allow states to make them use TRUMP brand fomula instead of breasr mik?

Isn't a part of former "conservatism" a right to self-control and self-determination?

So. If not not for rhe desire to impose religious beliefs on others, why was she the "home run?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Why was she the "home run"? Faith again? You never responded to my earlier questions? If so, that is the opposite of originalism. It is rank "my indefensible beliefs Trump your rational positions."

As others said earlier, will you accept that "state's rights" mean a State can make a woman abort? Can the Constitution allow states to make them use TRUMP brand fomula instead of breasr mik?

Isn't a part of former "conservatism" a right to self-control and self-determination?

So. If not not for rhe desire to impose religious beliefs on others, why was she the "home run?

I'm not answering for SEC, but I'll try to speak for most people who loved Barrett and claimed to hate Roe because it violated states' rights:

Because they believe there is a greater law than the rational, logic based laws we have on the books.

The ardent pro-lifer can't accept the weighing of interests involved in abortion. There is no abortion law which can satisfy him. But he knows this argument elevates "feelings" over rational thought. He knows he can't argue that the union of an egg and sperm is immediately conscious life. So he takes shelter in states' rights, and the fact that Roe wasn't not the most tightly reasoned of SCOTUS precedents.

It's not "religious" belief in every instance. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. It's "feelings." In this regard, it's indistinguishable from the "feelings" of college students that they shouldn't be forced to consider things that trigger them, or the "feelings" that lead to concepts like "microaggressions."

I'm with you. "Feelings" are worth considering, and people should be able to raise them by way of grievance, to help foster a more kind and considerate society. But they have no place in law. Particularly when hidden within the pretext of "states' rights."

(And this notion that men should have some say on abortions? That's quite repugnant. "I've impregnated you and therefore I acquire a claim against you which robs you of bodily autonomy." The nerve of that argument is astonishing.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

We never had it with owners of animals, have we? Don’t they only get one tort-free bite under common law? So why should Sea World (the owners of Shamu) get more free bites than Sebby with his labradoodle? I would totally sue that pompous blowhard if his mutt took a nip at me while he was too busy pontificating over the 37 minute drum solo in his bootleg reel to reel of the Dead’s 1973 Red Rock show to pay attention to the evil little bastard.

And (serious question) has assumption of the risk ever applied in an employment situation?

Labradoodle? We're fighting next I see you.

I love dogs, but they're like having more kids. Hence, I have no dogs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Bipartisanship today is indeed impossible. It's gone. I'd love to bring it back, but, let's face it, where is there a Republican we can trust or deal with in a position of authority? I know you don't think well of the Republican leadership, despite being committed to what were, historically, considered conservative ideals.

There are Republicans we can deal with, and if any of them were in power, there might be hope. For example, both Hatch and Graham have histories of being able to work across the aisle. McConnell? No way, fuck him. Hypocritical lying ass. Ryan? Total ass, can't be trusted. Trump's team?! [uncontrollable laughter.]

Democracy, our political system... neither can operate without good faith and commitment to compromise as necessary.

Somewhere in the last 40 years we shifted from a society where those things occurred into a Republic the politics of which run exclusively on rational self-interest and game theory.

Good luck reversing that. In case you haven't noticed, in almost all of our industries, in almost all of our commerce, hell, even in personal relations, we're trending toward nihilism. That's not hyperbole. I'm using the term clinically, with it's driest non-judgmental definition.

The blame is all over the place, but I'd label our obsession with financialization as the prime driver. It creates bloodless people and puts materialism, already a prime facet of our culture, on steroids.

Are you #winning? Because that's all that matters!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Less, you are such a naysayer. I, for one, welcome our new killer whale overlords.

Hat tip to the always-delightful Bess Levin:



Plus let’s not forget that the man does not share the good stuff with family. I mean, while Canadian Club is a perfectly adequate whiskey, it is no substitute for the Caskmates, amirite Sebby?

Canadian Club cleans tires like nothing else, save perhaps WD-40.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Why was she the "home run"? Faith again? You never responded to my earlier questions? If so, that is the opposite of originalism. It is rank "my indefensible beliefs Trump your rational positions."

As others said earlier, will you accept that "state's rights" mean a State can make a woman abort? Can the Constitution allow states to make them use TRUMP brand fomula instead of breasr mik?

Isn't a part of former "conservatism" a right to self-control and self-determination?

So. If not not for rhe desire to impose religious beliefs on others, why was she the "home run?

I don’t think that her legal decisions would differ from Kethowdge. Kavanaugh, oh the other hand is weak on the 4th Amendment, particularly with respect to FISA.

I think that she mainly would have been a home run politically. Any Trump nominee would be strongly opposed by the fill in the blank protesters. Kavanaugh is not a good enough a choice to fire up the many people who don’t like him but think SCOTUS is important. Barrett would have exposed again the left’s anti-religious bigotry right before the midterms. She also is a woman, and a mother of 7, including 2 adopted from Haiti, and has a child with special needs. We could also get ahead of the argument that Roe was overturned by 5 men. Democrats being asshats during confirmation would have provided good fodder for Senate races in the fall. In any case the recent data has chances of the GOP keeping the Senate at over 70%, but she would have helped.

I am ok with states doing what is constitutional. I’m pretty sure I answered this when GGG asked if I’d be ok with the repeal of the Hyde amendment and thought I would want States to go pre-Griswold. With what jurisprudence like emanations and penumbras have given us, I would be surprised to find that state-forced abortion or your other suggestions are constitutional. If they are, we are all screwed anyway. I think Roe can be overturned, as other bad decisions have been before, but NY is already considering pre-emptively securing the right to abortion in NY in case Roe goes down, and that’s fine.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Apparently, you never had a chance - https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anth...73ecf/?ref=yfp

Most corrupt White House ever.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So we all agree Kavanaugh was correct. Kumbayah.

Re your question, I asked similar one about strip club employees a few months ago, and was told that, yes, if it part of the job.

Wait, getting eaten alive by a fish is part of the job??

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(And this notion that men should have some say on abortions? That's quite repugnant. "I've impregnated you and therefore I acquire a claim against you which robs you of bodily autonomy." The nerve of that argument is astonishing.)

Astonishing? Man's ownership of woman as a legal concept is not terrible far in the past.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I agree with Kavanagh. We have abandoned assumption of the risk.

Whether or not one agrees, it doesn't seem like it's the job of a federal judge to substitute his own views about the wisdom of such things in the place of whatever it is that Congress and the Department of Labor have done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The blame is all over the place, but I'd label our obsession with financialization as the prime driver.

Blaming everyone is the same as blaming no one.

You're right that politics requires compromise. The main problem with our politics is that a significant portion of Republicans reject compromise. Conservative Republicans are driving polarization which makes compromise impossible. The single person most responsible for the change to our politics is Newt Gingrich.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Blaming everyone is the same as blaming no one.

This is almost as maddening as, "If you believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything." It's not pithy if it's flatly wrong.

You're right that politics requires compromise. The main problem with our politics is that a significant portion of Republicans reject compromise. Conservative Republicans are driving polarization which makes compromise impossible. The single person most responsible for the change to our politics is Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich owns considerable blame. That's a very astute observation.

But I'm citing causes beyond politics. We've adopted a zero sum game mentality about so many things, society looks like a giant chessboard of nihilists. Winning is everything, which explains a lot about why so many people still admire this President.

Get paid, get rich. Fuck what's created, what you do, and what you leave. Get yours, now, and get so much of it you almost choke on it. Sound familiar? From Wall Street to 50 Cent to Mitch McConnell, it's a culture celebrating extraction -- how much can ya get? The blame for that I lay at the feet of the finance industry. When all anyone sees is numbers, they cease to be interesting, to have a soul, and everything becomes a game. Build a pile, then die. Pretty bleak.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Astonishing? Man's ownership of woman as a legal concept is not terrible far in the past.

Yeah, but to say it without any self-awareness? How fucking clueless is that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whether or not one agrees, it doesn't seem like it's the job of a federal judge to substitute his own views about the wisdom of such things in the place of whatever it is that Congress and the Department of Labor have done.

So you think Roe was wrongly decided?