Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Oh this age! How tasteless and ill-bred it is. -- Gaius Valerius Catullus


arts / rec.arts.sf.written / Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

SubjectAuthor
* A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
|+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
||`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
|| `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
||  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJames Nicoll
||  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDorothy J Heydt
||  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
||  +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
||  |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionKevrob
||  | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionScott Lurndal
||  | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionKevrob
||  | | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionScott Lurndal
||  | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDan Swartzendruber
||  |  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
||  |  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionKevrob
||  |  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJay E. Morris
||  |  `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Carnegie
||  |   `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
||  |    `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionAlan
||  |     `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decisionpete...@gmail.com
||  `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionBice
||   `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Woodward
|+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
|`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionMagewolf
| +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDavid Johnston
| | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDavid Johnston
| | | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJoy Beeson
| `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDavid Johnston
+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Carnegie
|+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
|`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionKevrob
|`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| |+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| ||`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| |+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | |+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | ||+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | |||`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionMagewolf
| | ||| +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | ||| `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | |||  +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionMagewolf
| | |||  `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | ||`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Carnegie
| | | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| | | |+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionAlan
| | | ||`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| | | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | | | |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |  `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| | | | |   +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |   `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |    +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |    +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| | | | |    |`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |    `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| | | | |     +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |     |+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |     |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | | |     | +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |     | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |     | |`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | | | |     | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionLynn McGuire
| | | | |     |  `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | | |     `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |      `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| | | | |       +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionNinapenda Jibini
| | | | |       `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |        `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |         +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | | | |         |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |         | +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | | | |         | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |         `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | | |          +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |          |+* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionQuadibloc
| | | | |          ||`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | |          |+- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | | |          |`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |          | `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Carnegie
| | | | |          +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
| | | | |          `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |           `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | | |            `- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | +* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionJ. Clarke
| | | | |`- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionPaul S Person
| | | | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
| | | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRoss Presser
| | `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionKevrob
| +- Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionRobert Carnegie
| `* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionThe Horny Goat
`* Re: A Poor Supreme Court DecisionDavid Johnston

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819
A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72842&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72842

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b4d:0:b0:69f:7742:9778 with SMTP id 74-20020a370b4d000000b0069f77429778mr13263645qkl.109.1651597846191;
Tue, 03 May 2022 10:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3206:0:b0:648:f57a:ffda with SMTP id
y6-20020a253206000000b00648f57affdamr15043286yby.353.1651597846046; Tue, 03
May 2022 10:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e;
posting-account=1nOeKQkAAABD2jxp4Pzmx9Hx5g9miO8y
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: jsav...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 17:10:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 51
 by: Quadibloc - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:10 UTC

I read this news story the other day:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-by-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195

I felt that the decision was a bad one.

But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in law.

Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
general community use until that point, a First Amendment
claim could be countenanced.

But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the city,
even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only for inoffensive,
non-controversial flags that were for something that was considered
positive for the whole city - and it was only when that guy with his
Christian flag came along that anyone thought to present anything
potentially controversial to fly.

But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous
finding of _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an *appelate*
court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial judge?

However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of fact by
the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted often need *new
trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by the trial judge.

Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged leak,
in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.

While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and
should be given legal protection from about the seventh week of
pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), I also recognize
that the vast majority of the right-to-life movement seems to be
more concerned about imposing sexual morality than protecting
the lives of the unborn.

Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not affecting the
urgency of the need to protect the lives of unborn children.

My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major
evangelical Christian groups saying they were abandoning the
"lost" abortion fight to fight against something where they thought
they still could win - gay marriage.

And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court
including Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for
not feeling respect towards such a decision.

John Savard

John Savard

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<XnsAE8C680D4A996taustingmail@85.12.62.232>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72845&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72845

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!178.20.174.213.MISMATCH!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: tausti...@gmail.com (Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha)
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <XnsAE8C680D4A996taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
X-Suck-My-Dick: Suck My Dick
Lines: 41
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 10:13:43 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2157
 by: Jibini Kula Tumbili - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:13 UTC

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com:

> I read this news story the other day:
>
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-b
> y-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>
> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>
> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in
> law.
>
> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
> general community use until that point, a First Amendment
> claim could be countenanced.
>
> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the
> city, even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only
> for inoffensive, non-controversial flags that were for something
> that was considered positive for the whole city -

So long as *you* and *only* you get to decide what's non-
controversial for a city you don't live in in a county you don't live
in, eh?

People like you - fascist assholes - are the reason the 1st Amendment
was necessary.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72856&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72856

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: lynnmcgu...@gmail.com (Lynn McGuire)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:11:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 19:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="41e776c82e116b92d362def1343a26b9";
logging-data="27813"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aJ9PNul80YyKSfYaZX+0E"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ON0jZqeSZ9mS8XVZRMPAQa0rQzY=
In-Reply-To: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Lynn McGuire - Tue, 3 May 2022 19:11 UTC

On 5/3/2022 12:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I read this news story the other day:
>
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-by-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>
> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>
> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in law.
>
> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
> general community use until that point, a First Amendment
> claim could be countenanced.
>
> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the city,
> even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only for inoffensive,
> non-controversial flags that were for something that was considered
> positive for the whole city - and it was only when that guy with his
> Christian flag came along that anyone thought to present anything
> potentially controversial to fly.
>
> But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous
> finding of _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an *appelate*
> court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial judge?
>
> However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of fact by
> the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted often need *new
> trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by the trial judge.
>
> Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged leak,
> in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.
>
> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and
> should be given legal protection from about the seventh week of
> pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), I also recognize
> that the vast majority of the right-to-life movement seems to be
> more concerned about imposing sexual morality than protecting
> the lives of the unborn.
>
> Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not affecting the
> urgency of the need to protect the lives of unborn children.
>
> My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major
> evangelical Christian groups saying they were abandoning the
> "lost" abortion fight to fight against something where they thought
> they still could win - gay marriage.
>
> And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court
> including Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for
> not feeling respect towards such a decision.
>
> John Savard
>
> John Savard

You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to overturn
abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Hat tip to:
https://www.drudgereport.com/

Lynn

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<abd298ca-991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72858&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72858

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:587:b0:2f3:a51d:9215 with SMTP id c7-20020a05622a058700b002f3a51d9215mr10540336qtb.345.1651605396824;
Tue, 03 May 2022 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:ae54:0:b0:2f8:9161:b243 with SMTP id
g20-20020a81ae54000000b002f89161b243mr16587248ywk.139.1651605396659; Tue, 03
May 2022 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.30.46.161; posting-account=dELd-gkAAABehNzDMBP4sfQElk2tFztP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.30.46.161
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <abd298ca-991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: rja.carn...@excite.com (Robert Carnegie)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 19:16:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 1
 by: Robert Carnegie - Tue, 3 May 2022 19:16 UTC

What's the sci fi angle in any of this that justifies
bringing it up?

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72866&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72866

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: tausti...@gmail.com (Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha)
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
X-Suck-My-Dick: Suck My Dick
Lines: 96
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 13:20:08 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 4670
 by: Jibini Kula Tumbili - Tue, 3 May 2022 20:20 UTC

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me:

> On 5/3/2022 12:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I read this news story the other day:
>>
>> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-
>> by-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>>
>> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>>
>> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in
>> law.
>>
>> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
>> general community use until that point, a First Amendment
>> claim could be countenanced.
>>
>> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of
>> the city, even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was
>> only for inoffensive, non-controversial flags that were for
>> something that was considered positive for the whole city - and
>> it was only when that guy with his Christian flag came along
>> that anyone thought to present anything potentially
>> controversial to fly.
>>
>> But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous
>> finding of _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an
>> *appelate* court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial
>> judge?
>>
>> However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of
>> fact by the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted
>> often need *new trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by
>> the trial judge.
>>
>> Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged
>> leak, in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.
>>
>> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy,
>> and should be given legal protection from about the seventh
>> week of pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), I
>> also recognize that the vast majority of the right-to-life
>> movement seems to be more concerned about imposing sexual
>> morality than protecting the lives of the unborn.
>>
>> Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not
>> affecting the urgency of the need to protect the lives of
>> unborn children.
>>
>> My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major
>> evangelical Christian groups saying they were abandoning the
>> "lost" abortion fight to fight against something where they
>> thought they still could win - gay marriage.
>>
>> And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court
>> including Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for
>> not feeling respect towards such a decision.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>> John Savard
>
> You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to
> overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-d
> raft-opinion-00029473
>
Note that this is a working draft that was leaked (which is
apparently unprecedented), not a final decision, and whatever it
ends up being won't be published for probably a couple of months.
The text of the ruling will quite possibly change, and in theory, I
suspect the decision could actually be reversed (though that's
*very* unlikely).

The Democrats are, of course, making noises about federal
legislation to protect abortion rights, but since this ruling is
based on the 10th Amendment, that won't fly any farther.

Exepct a *lot* of pearl cluthing and moaning about the End Of Human
Civilization with Dogs And Cats LIving Together, which has already
started on the steps of the court building.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<XnsAE8C87BE65226taustingmail@85.12.62.232>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72867&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72867

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: tausti...@gmail.com (Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha)
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <abd298ca-991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <XnsAE8C87BE65226taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
X-Suck-My-Dick: Suck My Dick
Lines: 21
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 13:20:38 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1429
 by: Jibini Kula Tumbili - Tue, 3 May 2022 20:20 UTC

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in news:abd298ca-
991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com:

> What's the sci fi angle in any of this that justifies
> bringing it up?

What's the sci fi angle of you whining like a two year old with a
dirty diaper?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<6f544db2-5a3b-401f-808d-0fb3d67a939an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72869&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72869

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:b94:b0:456:38b2:2d76 with SMTP id fe20-20020a0562140b9400b0045638b22d76mr14965432qvb.70.1651609630002;
Tue, 03 May 2022 13:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:1d8a:0:b0:2f8:3e81:1c1f with SMTP id
d132-20020a811d8a000000b002f83e811c1fmr17561143ywd.146.1651609629796; Tue, 03
May 2022 13:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 13:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <abd298ca-991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e;
posting-account=1nOeKQkAAABD2jxp4Pzmx9Hx5g9miO8y
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <abd298ca-991b-46eb-8096-0cffe1d19673n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6f544db2-5a3b-401f-808d-0fb3d67a939an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: jsav...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 20:27:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 7
 by: Quadibloc - Tue, 3 May 2022 20:27 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> What's the sci fi angle in any of this that justifies
> bringing it up?

I'm going with the period known as "The Crazy Years" in Robert A.
Heinlein's future history.

John Savard

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<d0dbdf35-bfa4-42a7-aaa1-f073944f323en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72871&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72871

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f03:0:b0:2f3:ac9e:112e with SMTP id f3-20020ac87f03000000b002f3ac9e112emr6881048qtk.43.1651611606628;
Tue, 03 May 2022 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:db48:0:b0:645:79b5:25a3 with SMTP id
g69-20020a25db48000000b0064579b525a3mr15619313ybf.285.1651611606409; Tue, 03
May 2022 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e;
posting-account=1nOeKQkAAABD2jxp4Pzmx9Hx5g9miO8y
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:56a:fb70:6300:6947:3c86:73e1:a64e
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d0dbdf35-bfa4-42a7-aaa1-f073944f323en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: jsav...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 21:00:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 48
 by: Quadibloc - Tue, 3 May 2022 21:00 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to overturn
> abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

I do see one flaw in it.

It relies uncritically on the historical record. Given the First Amendment,
specifically the Establishment Clause, the argument is not without weight
that, while one could point to a time before which Sunday Blue Laws, or
the prohibition of contraception, or the prohibition of homosexual acts
between consenting adults, were regarded as constitutional, the
evolution of public consciousness led to the realization that these things
did infringe individual liberties by imposing something that could only
reasonably be viewed as the doctrine of a certain group of religious
denominations.

Abortion could be held to belong to the same category.

Unlike those, however, it could also be held to be an act violating the
rights of an actual person, making legal abortion a national disgrace
comparable to Negro slavery.

I do not have a quarrel with overturning Roe vs. Wade _per se_.

But this event is occuring in a particular context.

Its only support seems to be coming from a section of the body
politic that has only recently displayed a manifest and wilful disregard
for human life in its reaction to public health measures for dealing with
the COVID-19 pandemic.

The decision is being made by a Supreme Court which includes as a
member one Brett Kavanaugh, whose record on respect for the bodily
autonomy of women was put on record by the appointment process.

In this context, handing the power to regulate abortion to a small group
of states, those with governments that have shown themselves to be
careless of human life, in the grip of a political ideology that can only be
described as lunacy, and with the demonstrated intent to subvert the
electoral process to whatever extent they can get away with to their
advantage - is not going to heal social divisions over the abortion issue.

It will inflame them even more than the original _Roe vs. Wade_ decision
did, even though it indeed was flawed for most of the reasons cited.

John Savard

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<t4sim9$869$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72878&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72878

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Magew...@nc.rr.com (Magewolf)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 00:51:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <t4sim9$869$1@dont-email.me>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
<t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 00:51:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6faba6d98e2659aee319c94bf4017291";
logging-data="8393"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JUVE4oWJyzfL4PsqA1Gu6Ff4ibnZ1NI4="
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
git.gnome.org/pan2)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k3qKJqkEnvb2p0oay5RYgHas7Hs=
 by: Magewolf - Wed, 4 May 2022 00:51 UTC

On Tue, 03 May 2022 14:11:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 5/3/2022 12:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I read this news story the other day:
>>
>> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-by-
refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>>
>> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>>
>> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in law.
>>
>> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for general
>> community use until that point, a First Amendment claim could be
>> countenanced.
>>
>> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the city,
>> even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only for
>> inoffensive,
>> non-controversial flags that were for something that was considered
>> positive for the whole city - and it was only when that guy with his
>> Christian flag came along that anyone thought to present anything
>> potentially controversial to fly.
>>
>> But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous finding of
>> _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an *appelate*
>> court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial judge?
>>
>> However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of fact by
>> the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted often need *new
>> trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by the trial judge.
>>
>> Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged leak,
>> in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.
>>
>> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and should
>> be given legal protection from about the seventh week of pregnancy
>> (when brain circuits have started forming), I also recognize that the
>> vast majority of the right-to-life movement seems to be more concerned
>> about imposing sexual morality than protecting the lives of the unborn.
>>
>> Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not affecting the
>> urgency of the need to protect the lives of unborn children.
>>
>> My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major evangelical
>> Christian groups saying they were abandoning the "lost" abortion fight
>> to fight against something where they thought they still could win -
>> gay marriage.
>>
>> And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court including
>> Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for not feeling respect
>> towards such a decision.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>> John Savard
>
> You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to overturn
> abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-
opinion-00029473
>
> Hat tip to:
> https://www.drudgereport.com/
>
> Lynn

The thing is that I think regardless of their opinion on abortion rights
if you held a gun to most lawyers head while they were hooked up to a lie
detector most would admit that Roe vs Wade was bad law. It was just
propped up by politics.

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<t4smh6$59m$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72882&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72882

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: lynnmcgu...@gmail.com (Lynn McGuire)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 20:56:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <t4smh6$59m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
<t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <t4sim9$869$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 01:56:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="428d64d2fe3297897bcd7ad3006ce57d";
logging-data="5430"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XliiwzDZgHkz39/ICNu9B"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AVdxqkIT+rEZJVGOmYp8U7WGgOY=
In-Reply-To: <t4sim9$869$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Lynn McGuire - Wed, 4 May 2022 01:56 UTC

On 5/3/2022 7:51 PM, Magewolf wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2022 14:11:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 12:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I read this news story the other day:
>>>
>>> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-by-
> refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>>>
>>> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>>>
>>> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in law.
>>>
>>> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for general
>>> community use until that point, a First Amendment claim could be
>>> countenanced.
>>>
>>> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the city,
>>> even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only for
>>> inoffensive,
>>> non-controversial flags that were for something that was considered
>>> positive for the whole city - and it was only when that guy with his
>>> Christian flag came along that anyone thought to present anything
>>> potentially controversial to fly.
>>>
>>> But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous finding of
>>> _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an *appelate*
>>> court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial judge?
>>>
>>> However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of fact by
>>> the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted often need *new
>>> trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by the trial judge.
>>>
>>> Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged leak,
>>> in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.
>>>
>>> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and should
>>> be given legal protection from about the seventh week of pregnancy
>>> (when brain circuits have started forming), I also recognize that the
>>> vast majority of the right-to-life movement seems to be more concerned
>>> about imposing sexual morality than protecting the lives of the unborn.
>>>
>>> Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not affecting the
>>> urgency of the need to protect the lives of unborn children.
>>>
>>> My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major evangelical
>>> Christian groups saying they were abandoning the "lost" abortion fight
>>> to fight against something where they thought they still could win -
>>> gay marriage.
>>>
>>> And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court including
>>> Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for not feeling respect
>>> towards such a decision.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to overturn
>> abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
>>
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-
> opinion-00029473
>>
>> Hat tip to:
>> https://www.drudgereport.com/
>>
>> Lynn
>
> The thing is that I think regardless of their opinion on abortion rights
> if you held a gun to most lawyers head while they were hooked up to a lie
> detector most would admit that Roe vs Wade was bad law. It was just
> propped up by politics.

I would like to see a Privacy Amendment added to the Constitution. That
would solve this type of issue and start a whole lot more.

Lynn

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<gua57h90e3h4p4joi9407p7f5sm4r2fpl1@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72930&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72930

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: psper...@old.netcom.invalid (Paul S Person)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 09:39:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <gua57h90e3h4p4joi9407p7f5sm4r2fpl1@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a6f113ababa2d825fbd33a00072a4b1d";
logging-data="21513"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OJHO4xtZVkBqmi9/hQAImQ8LAKvDIqyE="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:neakW+syJUet7sJB8Pfz62wXU2I=
 by: Paul S Person - Wed, 4 May 2022 16:39 UTC

On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>I read this news story the other day:
>
>https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-by-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>
>I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>
>But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in law.
>
>Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
>general community use until that point, a First Amendment
>claim could be countenanced.
>
>But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of the city,
>even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was only for inoffensive,
>non-controversial flags that were for something that was considered
>positive for the whole city - and it was only when that guy with his
>Christian flag came along that anyone thought to present anything
>potentially controversial to fly.

They have allowed similar flags to fly in the past.

And they announced, when the suit was filed, that, if they lost, they
would change their policy to assert control over what could be flown.
Which the decision explicitly allows them to do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72931&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72931

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: psper...@old.netcom.invalid (Paul S Person)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a6f113ababa2d825fbd33a00072a4b1d";
logging-data="28451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IclykPkLQoaOgihT6ujrqYTyLgK3qboA="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:str3cge26JY0jGtkfUnH9ODoy88=
 by: Paul S Person - Wed, 4 May 2022 16:46 UTC

On Tue, 03 May 2022 13:20:08 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 12:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I read this news story the other day:
>>>
>>> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-violated-free-speech-rights-
>>> by-refusing-to-fly-christian-flag-u-s-supreme-court-1.5885195
>>>
>>> I felt that the decision was a bad one.
>>>
>>> But I'm not claiming that the Supreme Court made an error in
>>> law.
>>>
>>> Certainly, if the flagpole in question _had_ been something for
>>> general community use until that point, a First Amendment
>>> claim could be countenanced.
>>>
>>> But it would seem to me that, far more likely, the policy of
>>> the city, even if not explicitly articulated, was that it was
>>> only for inoffensive, non-controversial flags that were for
>>> something that was considered positive for the whole city - and
>>> it was only when that guy with his Christian flag came along
>>> that anyone thought to present anything potentially
>>> controversial to fly.
>>>
>>> But that would mean that the Supreme Court made an erroneous
>>> finding of _fact_! Excuse me, but the Supreme Court is an
>>> *appelate* court; aren't findings of fact the job of the trial
>>> judge?
>>>
>>> However, while an appelate court can't overrule a finding of
>>> fact by the trial judge (which is why the wrongfully convicted
>>> often need *new trials*) I guess it can fill a vacuum left by
>>> the trial judge.
>>>
>>> Of course, this minor news story is now eclipsed by the alleged
>>> leak, in Politico, of a draft judgment overturning Roe vs Wade.
>>>
>>> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy,
>>> and should be given legal protection from about the seventh
>>> week of pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), I
>>> also recognize that the vast majority of the right-to-life
>>> movement seems to be more concerned about imposing sexual
>>> morality than protecting the lives of the unborn.
>>>
>>> Originally, I viewed this as merely unfortunate, and not
>>> affecting the urgency of the need to protect the lives of
>>> unborn children.
>>>
>>> My thinking was somewhat affected when I heard some major
>>> evangelical Christian groups saying they were abandoning the
>>> "lost" abortion fight to fight against something where they
>>> thought they still could win - gay marriage.
>>>
>>> And then came Trump. If Roe vs Wade is overturned by a court
>>> including Brett Kavanaugh, I can hardly blame many women for
>>> not feeling respect towards such a decision.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> You are going to love this one, "Supreme Court has voted to
>> overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows"
>>
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-d
>> raft-opinion-00029473
>>
>Note that this is a working draft that was leaked (which is
>apparently unprecedented), not a final decision, and whatever it
>ends up being won't be published for probably a couple of months.
>The text of the ruling will quite possibly change, and in theory, I
>suspect the decision could actually be reversed (though that's
>*very* unlikely).
>
>The Democrats are, of course, making noises about federal
>legislation to protect abortion rights, but since this ruling is
>based on the 10th Amendment, that won't fly any farther.
>
>Exepct a *lot* of pearl cluthing and moaning about the End Of Human
>Civilization with Dogs And Cats LIving Together, which has already
>started on the steps of the court building.

And fund raising. And voter turnout. Don't forget those.

And there are a few things they might be able to do: for example, they
might be able to use Federal control over interstate commerce to
prevent States from prohibiting the receipt of Certain Drugs, which
they will no doubt be outlawing, creating a major problem for
anti-abortion States with Medical Marijuana, since they will both be
trying to /prohibit/ a drug legal under Federal law and to /permit/ a
drug illegal under Federal law.

But, yes, if the Supremes conclude that abortion is reserved to the
States, then any Federal law /short of a Constitutional Amendment/
that tries to make it universally legal will fail. Well, except for
military members, of course, on military bases [1] and a perhaps a few
similar situations.

[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73110&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73110

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!81.171.65.13.MISMATCH!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: lcra...@home.ca (The Horny Goat)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Message-ID: <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1728
 by: The Horny Goat - Sat, 7 May 2022 20:13 UTC

On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.

Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
uniform being denied beverages on account of age?

I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.

Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.

I've never heard of that being formalized anywhere but would support
it if someone did.

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<t56kle$7n5$1@reader1.panix.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73112&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73112

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 20:26:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Message-ID: <t56kle$7n5$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 20:26:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix3.panix.com:166.84.1.3";
logging-data="7909"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
 by: James Nicoll - Sat, 7 May 2022 20:26 UTC

In article <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
>
>Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
>uniform being denied beverages on account of age?
>
>I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
>or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.
>
>Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
>die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.

Were I a bar owner, I would not care to bet my bar on a random judge agreeing
with that logic.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<rBJ8qF.A0F@kithrup.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73113&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73113

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-vm.kithrup.com!kithrup.com!djheydt
From: djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Message-ID: <rBJ8qF.A0F@kithrup.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 21:51:51 GMT
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Lines: 37
 by: Dorothy J Heydt - Sat, 7 May 2022 21:51 UTC

In article <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
>
>Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
>uniform being denied beverages on account of age?
>
>I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
>or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.
>
>Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
>die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.

Back in the days when the age of majority was 21, the argument
was "if they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to vote."
So I didn't get to vote in Kennedy vs. Nixon.

When I was old enough to vote against Nixon, I did so every
chance I got.* I voted for the Democrat, whoever he was that
year.

_____
*I didn't take it as far as Hal did: he changed his party
affiliation to Republican so he could vote against Reagan twice
as often. He changed back a while ago, probably after California
switched to open primaries. Also known as jungle primaries.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<ju0e7h936n1ab78nnh27p8s0hguvskpn8m@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73116&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73116

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jclarke....@gmail.com (J. Clarke)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Message-ID: <ju0e7h936n1ab78nnh27p8s0hguvskpn8m@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 19:44:13 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2266
 by: J. Clarke - Sat, 7 May 2022 23:44 UTC

On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
>
>Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
>uniform being denied beverages on account of age?

In the US? Most assuredly yes. In fact this was a point of
contention between Jacksonville, Florida and USNS Mayport--the base
commander had set the on-base drinking age to 18 and Jacksvonville had
21. IIRC ultimately the base commander caved and raised the on-base
age to 21.

>I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
>or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.
>
>Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
>die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.

Most barkeeps in the US tend to take the attitude that they want to
keep their jobs and not go to jail.

>I've never heard of that being formalized anywhere but would support
>it if someone did.

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73133&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73133

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: psper...@old.netcom.invalid (Paul S Person)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 09:01:14 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="57635994693a1a8cea657410c6d532ed";
logging-data="10020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tbfIoH9iq0VCVVuh8DEgOaAvbgMUNetE="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:93QOk3vgdFBEyTb7SybRfoxZqsI=
 by: Paul S Person - Sun, 8 May 2022 16:01 UTC

On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
>
>Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
>uniform being denied beverages on account of age?
>
>I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
>or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.
>
>Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
>die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.
>
>I've never heard of that being formalized anywhere but would support
>it if someone did.

Where you are, maybe.

In California in 1969, no.

That's why the EM ("Enlisted Men's") Club was so popular.

And so much "fun" to clean up the next morning.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<62790e6a.1188203781@localhost>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73166&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73166

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: eichlert...@comcast.net (Bice)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 12:54:57 GMT
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <62790e6a.1188203781@localhost>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1e62145962eb8cf58c4733acefb47b10";
logging-data="16434"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uZBbcn5aV6y2wYmroNkGJBRDrnvuwgDM="
User-Agent: Hamster/2.1.0.11
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jmES0jbFoU3l+WfdMS8PcxQr29c=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220509-4, 5/9/2022), Outbound message
 by: Bice - Mon, 9 May 2022 12:54 UTC

On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
>>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
>>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
>>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.

I work on a Navy base and was riding a bicycle across the base one day
when a guard stopped me and gave me a warning for not wearing a
helmet. I told him that helmets aren't required for adults riding a
bicycle in Pennsylvania, and his response was "You're not in
Pennsylvania, you're on a military base."

-- Bob

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<robertaw-3F6171.09405909052022@news.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73178&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73178

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rober...@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 09:40:59 -0700
Organization: home user
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <robertaw-3F6171.09405909052022@news.individual.net>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com> <62790e6a.1188203781@localhost>
X-Trace: individual.net 5C8F/rmo/7YCKXzYIwthCgdCq8At7m2ew0mr2e4/ncf/vkUOwP
X-Orig-Path: robertaw
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hM2n/+TWX4zzS9PhzeAYnEOfUV4=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
 by: Robert Woodward - Mon, 9 May 2022 16:40 UTC

In article <62790e6a.1188203781@localhost>,
eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net (Bice) wrote:

> On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
> ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
> >>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
> >>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
> >>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
>
> I work on a Navy base and was riding a bicycle across the base one day
> when a guard stopped me and gave me a warning for not wearing a
> helmet. I told him that helmets aren't required for adults riding a
> bicycle in Pennsylvania, and his response was "You're not in
> Pennsylvania, you're on a military base."
>

The relevant authority can be found as part of Article 1, Section 8 of
the US Constitution:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<0a36344b-9dbc-4f5f-9495-87d091c7f26fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73185&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73185

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:16c2:b0:69f:ca37:f6b5 with SMTP id a2-20020a05620a16c200b0069fca37f6b5mr13300083qkn.48.1652126114289;
Mon, 09 May 2022 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6f54:0:b0:648:b8a1:d212 with SMTP id
k81-20020a256f54000000b00648b8a1d212mr15698978ybc.225.1652126114001; Mon, 09
May 2022 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.209.77.83; posting-account=u34liwcAAABfwEtzjWOPYX_eA1xYzefN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.209.77.83
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
<t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
<a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
<17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0a36344b-9dbc-4f5f-9495-87d091c7f26fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 19:55:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Kevrob - Mon, 9 May 2022 19:55 UTC

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 12:01:21 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:46:35 -0700, Paul S Person
> ><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>[1] 18-year-old draftees were allowed to drink on military bases in
> >>States where the legal drinking age was 21 in the late 60s. The
> >>precedent that the military makes rules applicable everywhere
> >>regardless of local law is pretty firmly in place.
> >
> >Have you EVER heard of any member of any of the armed forces in
> >uniform being denied beverages on account of age?
> >
> >I sure haven't. Not in uniform sure but I've never heard of a soldier
> >or sailor in uniform even being "carded" much less denied service.
> >
> >Most barkeeps tend to take the attitude that if they're old enough to
> >die for their country they're old enough to raise a glass.
> >
> >I've never heard of that being formalized anywhere but would support
> >it if someone did.
> Where you are, maybe.
>
> In California in 1969, no.
>
> That's why the EM ("Enlisted Men's") Club was so popular.
>
> And so much "fun" to clean up the next morning.
> --

The bars in Milwaukee, prior to Wisconsin being whipsawed into
raising the drinking age to 21 by the Feds denying states any
highway money unless they knuckled under, had a constant
stream of brand-new sailors given liberty from the Great Lakes
station at North Chicago. IL was a 21 state. If they older, they
could get served in the Land of Lincoln.

Some local establishments tried to bar sailors in uniform,
which did not go down well with the Navy nor local veterans.
recruits who had not yet earned the privilege of wearing civvies
on liberty especially didn't like it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1985-04-05-8501190583-story.html

--
Kevin R

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<XpeeK.9849$gc62.6630@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73186&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73186

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-newsreader: xrn 9.03-beta-14-64bit
Sender: scott@dragon.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
From: sco...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Reply-To: slp53@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com> <17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com> <0a36344b-9dbc-4f5f-9495-87d091c7f26fn@googlegroups.com>
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <XpeeK.9849$gc62.6630@fx45.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 20:00:55 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer - www.usenetserver.com
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 20:00:55 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 1558
 by: Scott Lurndal - Mon, 9 May 2022 20:00 UTC

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> writes:
>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 12:01:21 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> wrote:

>> --
>
>The bars in Milwaukee, prior to Wisconsin being whipsawed into
>raising the drinking age to 21 by the Feds denying states any
>highway money unless they knuckled under, had a constant
>stream of brand-new sailors given liberty from the Great Lakes
>station at North Chicago. IL was a 21 state. If they older, they
>could get served in the Land of Lincoln.

Which is somewhat ironic as Great Lakes is where the Corp
sends marines and the Navy sends sailors who have alcohol
problems.

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<7ce57046-ad10-4899-bf70-c6afb2d55a1an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73187&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73187

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:588:b0:2f3:bca9:ea34 with SMTP id c8-20020a05622a058800b002f3bca9ea34mr16846182qtb.601.1652127489686;
Mon, 09 May 2022 13:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c64b:0:b0:649:11d:9db1 with SMTP id
k72-20020a25c64b000000b00649011d9db1mr14645501ybf.128.1652127489531; Mon, 09
May 2022 13:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 13:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.209.77.83; posting-account=u34liwcAAABfwEtzjWOPYX_eA1xYzefN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.209.77.83
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7ce57046-ad10-4899-bf70-c6afb2d55a1an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 20:18:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2132
 by: Kevrob - Mon, 9 May 2022 20:18 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:10:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and
> should be given legal protection from about the seventh week of
> pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), .....

[snip]

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/syngamy

Ever since this issue broke into the public consciousness in my teens -
the Sisters at my high school used to arrange bus trips to Albany so
that the girls could join protests against repealing anti-abortion laws
before Roe came down - I've pooh-poohed "life begins at conception"
or at implantation or quickening or whatever. The real question is "when
does personhood begin?" I'm not going to use this space to lay down
some red line, as I don't have that expertise. I suspect a time T when
normal development yields a sufficiently complex brain might figure
into such a determination. Good luck finding a consensus on that
in the USA.

--
Kevin R

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<6358a21c-e4ce-4579-917e-f2962dd2fb3an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73188&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73188

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d48:b0:45a:9629:d5ea with SMTP id 8-20020a0562140d4800b0045a9629d5eamr15150792qvr.127.1652128354187;
Mon, 09 May 2022 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:4fd6:0:b0:2f7:d18a:ddfd with SMTP id
d205-20020a814fd6000000b002f7d18addfdmr15704928ywb.246.1652128354014; Mon, 09
May 2022 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <XpeeK.9849$gc62.6630@fx45.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.209.77.83; posting-account=u34liwcAAABfwEtzjWOPYX_eA1xYzefN
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.209.77.83
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com>
<t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232>
<a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com>
<17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com> <0a36344b-9dbc-4f5f-9495-87d091c7f26fn@googlegroups.com>
<XpeeK.9849$gc62.6630@fx45.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6358a21c-e4ce-4579-917e-f2962dd2fb3an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
From: kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob)
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 20:32:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2656
 by: Kevrob - Mon, 9 May 2022 20:32 UTC

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:00:59 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 12:01:21 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> --
> >
> >The bars in Milwaukee, prior to Wisconsin being whipsawed into
> >raising the drinking age to 21 by the Feds denying states any
> >highway money unless they knuckled under, had a constant
> >stream of brand-new sailors given liberty from the Great Lakes
> >station at North Chicago. IL was a 21 state. If they older, they
> >could get served in the Land of Lincoln.
> Which is somewhat ironic as Great Lakes is where the Corp
> sends marines and the Navy sends sailors who have alcohol
> problems.

Huh. I didn't show up in MKE until 1974, but the clinic at
Great Lakes only opened in 1972.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/24/archives/pioneer-navy-facility-leads-drive-to-treat-alcoholism-navy-facility.html

Now a DoD/Va partnership:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_James_A._Lovell_Federal_Health_Care_Center

Astronaut Lovell graduated from High School in Milwaukee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lovell

--
Kevin R

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<ffgeK.6523$lQq1.3968@fx43.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73189&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73189

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx43.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-newsreader: xrn 9.03-beta-14-64bit
Sender: scott@dragon.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
From: sco...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Reply-To: slp53@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <t4ruom$r55$1@dont-email.me> <XnsAE8C87A893201taustingmail@85.12.62.232> <a3b57h13gck7gpqnnjral1mbnqlpmn955l@4ax.com> <bhkd7hp5ul7uas9lbbo2fup229qgpg5te2@4ax.com> <17qf7hta4pnsjd25v1f4s8uh5cenjlh8ht@4ax.com> <0a36344b-9dbc-4f5f-9495-87d091c7f26fn@googlegroups.com> <XpeeK.9849$gc62.6630@fx45.iad> <6358a21c-e4ce-4579-917e-f2962dd2fb3an@googlegroups.com>
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <ffgeK.6523$lQq1.3968@fx43.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 22:06:03 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer - www.usenetserver.com
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 22:06:03 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 2081
 by: Scott Lurndal - Mon, 9 May 2022 22:06 UTC

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> writes:
>On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:00:59 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 12:01:21 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 07 May 2022 13:13:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> --
>> >
>> >The bars in Milwaukee, prior to Wisconsin being whipsawed into
>> >raising the drinking age to 21 by the Feds denying states any
>> >highway money unless they knuckled under, had a constant
>> >stream of brand-new sailors given liberty from the Great Lakes
>> >station at North Chicago. IL was a 21 state. If they older, they
>> >could get served in the Land of Lincoln.
>> Which is somewhat ironic as Great Lakes is where the Corp
>> sends marines and the Navy sends sailors who have alcohol
>> problems.
>
>Huh. I didn't show up in MKE until 1974, but the clinic at

That was a couple years after I first went to the Safe House
in Milwaukee (was living near Madison at the time).

Looks like it's still there; it was a lot of fun as a kid.

https://www.safe-house.com/

Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision

<h23l7hl7de851bq7taoc3prbp9ijfk6cse@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73204&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73204

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: psper...@old.netcom.invalid (Paul S Person)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A Poor Supreme Court Decision
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 09:07:57 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <h23l7hl7de851bq7taoc3prbp9ijfk6cse@4ax.com>
References: <e4e8173c-5d40-48e8-b88c-b8fc534e7cfcn@googlegroups.com> <7ce57046-ad10-4899-bf70-c6afb2d55a1an@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="677bb73e8955fb5b49c0c92595e91d05";
logging-data="7440"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HuEx+MUhXH3P0KwFsROBsaG/NgX+uMEs="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o/vdJPoxfnW3oeGG63O2bhe0EH0=
 by: Paul S Person - Tue, 10 May 2022 16:07 UTC

On Mon, 9 May 2022 13:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:10:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> While I am of the opinion that human life begins at syngamy, and
>> should be given legal protection from about the seventh week of
>> pregnancy (when brain circuits have started forming), .....
>
>[snip]
>
>https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/syngamy
>
>Ever since this issue broke into the public consciousness in my teens -
>the Sisters at my high school used to arrange bus trips to Albany so
>that the girls could join protests against repealing anti-abortion laws
>before Roe came down - I've pooh-poohed "life begins at conception"
>or at implantation or quickening or whatever. The real question is "when
>does personhood begin?" I'm not going to use this space to lay down
>some red line, as I don't have that expertise. I suspect a time T when
>normal development yields a sufficiently complex brain might figure
>into such a determination. Good luck finding a consensus on that
>in the USA.

The /traditional/ time is "when the child draws breath independently
of the mother". Note that "encouraging" the child to do so by slapping
it on its behind (more recently, poking it in the foot) has always
been allowed -- nay, expected if the child not start on its own.

Unless something has changed, in order to have a dependent, you must
have a birth certificate. Each State decides when to issue a birth
certificate -- and most if not all require the child to draw breath
independently of the mother. IOW, stillbirths and miscarriages do
/not/ (in most if not all States) get birth certificates.

These laws are very old and very traditional. They are (I suspect)
backed up by Christian theology (until, perhaps, recently, when
adopting the modernistic viewpoint has come into style by
anti-abortion types).

This is actually the basis for the common saying "Don't count your
chickens until they are hatched". They don't all hatch, and only those
that do so and live are chickens.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor