Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: You said he decision was based on his race.  I said he's not the only minority on the SC so that is racist(as he is the only BLACK on the court) see?

But you don't consider hispanic a minority.

Sooo...I dunno.  

So the statement was racist.  That doesn't mean you are a racist.  Just that race was used to make a bad argument.

Like if I said Thomas loves hot sauce just because he's black and you argued that hispanics like hot sauce too but I countered that hispanics don't count, blacks like hot sauce.  Then I would be making a race based assessment (racist).

Where the hell did I say I don't consider Hispanics a minority?

This is feeble even for you. But I do appreciate you tripling-down on it. 

Nothing said was racist. I simply said he might take a more severe approach to the act of aborting children because of race. 

I get you gotta try real hard. 


But more to the point: I'm glad SCOTUS decided the aborted child must be treated with human dignity.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where the hell did I say I don't consider Hispanics a minority?

This is feeble even for you. But I do appreciate you tripling-down on it. 

When you said you don't consider hispanic to be non-white.

(05-28-2019, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing said was racist. I simply said he might take a more severe approach to the act of aborting children because of race. 

(05-28-2019, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get you gotta try real hard. 

Nope.

(05-28-2019, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But more to the point: I'm glad SCOTUS decided the aborted child must be treated with human dignity.

"fetus"...per the ruling.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 04:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: When you said you don't consider hispanic to be non-white.



Nope.



"fetus"...per the ruling.

You're going to have to quote that for me. No where did I say anything you are asserting. I simply said Thomas is not the only minority if you consider Hispanics to be non-white. Hell many Hispanics consider themselves to be white. You where the one that made a deal about them being non-white. You might want to be careful where you point your "that's racist" finger; cause it just might be in the mirror. 


I'm gonna assume you don't know the meaning of racist

OK, the fetus is treated with human dignity. 

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're going to have to quote that for me. No where did I say anything you are asserting. I simply said Thomas is not the only minority if you consider Hispanics to be non-white.

(05-28-2019, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: As if Thomas is the only non-white race on the Court.

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really sure what's racist about MY POV, but don't let that stop you.

I suppose if you consider Hispanic to be non-white. But let's not try to compare the two, because there is none. 

 

Again that doesn't make you racist.  It makes using race as his excuse dumb and a racist excuse.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 09:24 PM)GMDino Wrote:





 

Again that doesn't make you racist.  It makes using race as his excuse dumb and a racist excuse.

I get this is embarrassing for you, but:


You still haven't showed me where i said Hispanics are not a minority

You still haven't showed where i consider Hispanics to be non-white

All you have showed is your failure to understand the concept of racism and failed in you attempts to explain why you accused someone of making racist comments.

Quit trying so hard to excuse your personal attacks. I don't think you Facebook buddies are going to do anything.  

All you've done 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2019, 01:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt the 2 of the 9 judges that dissented did so with no influence of personal politics.


Maybe allowing a mother to abort a child because of race just hits Thomas a little harder.  

Why would it hit Thomas harder than any other judge?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2019, 11:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this would be the most appropriate place for this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-compromise-on-indiana-abortion-law-keeps-issue-off-its-docket/ar-AAC2hyb?ocid=ientp

Pence signed this while still governor. Just another example of extreme Conservative Christians legislating their religious views on others in another attempt to get a case before the Supreme Court to overrule Roe vs. Wade.

Quote:I guess once it's out of the mother we must treat it as human.

According to state law in Indiana. Did you know the average funeral costs $7-9K. Just a cremation alone is over $1K. Many people won't be able to afford the expense the state is imposing upon them.

I think people should have the freedom to choose the disposition of the remains based upon their beliefs and not Mike Pence's beliefs. If they want to have a funeral or cremation they should be allowed to choose that option. If they want the remains to be processed as medical waste which had been the case in Indiana before this law they should be able to choose that option. But, one doesn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to understand why Republicans do this.

Quote:They didn't act on the "abnormality" part which includes restricting abortions because of sex and race among other things.

Other things like neural tube defects which we do testing for as opposed to race which we can't test for and isn't an abnormality? This is an even more insidious part of the plan to conflate abortions based upon information derived from genetic testing indicating a severe birth defect to an abortion based upon sex or race. As if sex and race are birth defects like neural tube defects. This is just a ploy to introduce eugenics into the discussion.

[BakertheBeast]

This is why I don't want Trump to get impeached. Let it play out till the election. As F up as Trump is I rather have him there than the Creep Pence.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You still haven't showed me where i said Hispanics are not a minority

You still haven't showed where i consider Hispanics to be non-white

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really sure what's racist about MY POV, but don't let that stop you.

I suppose if you consider Hispanic to be non-white. But let's not try to compare the two, because there is none. 

I simply provided a reason why he would consider aborting a child because of race akin to Eugenics. He was a direct descendent from  American Slaves and lost his house to fire as a child. He may have a more severe outlook on the matter than you, I, or RBG. 

You brought Thomas and his race into the conversation.

You don't want to "compare" any other minority to Thomas.

The SC decided to not hear the case. Thomas dragged his race into it. Other minorities did not.

Thomas doesn't care about the race and sex of the fetus. He cares about what his religion tells him.

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

Quote:As of 2007, Thomas was the justice most willing to exercise judicial review of federal statutes, but among the least likely to overturn state statutes.[138] According to a The New York Times editorial, "from 1994 to 2005 ... Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer."[139]

In the 2009 Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder case, Thomas was the sole dissenter, voting in favor of throwing out Section Five of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Section Five requires states with a history of racial voter discrimination—mostly states from the old South—to get Justice Department clearance when revising election procedures. Although Congress had reauthorized Section Five in 2006 for another 25 years, Thomas said the law was no longer necessary, pointing out that the rate of black voting in seven Section Five states was higher than the national average. Thomas said "the violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains."[140] He again took this position in Shelby County v. Holder, voting with the majority and concurring with the reasoning which struck down Section Five.[141]

Quote:On occasion, however, Thomas has disagreed with free speech claimants. For example, he dissented in Virginia v. Black, a case that struck down part of a Virginia statute that banned cross burning. Concurring in Morse v. Frederick, he argued that the free speech rights of students in public schools are limited.[145] In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, he joined the majority opinion that Texas's decision to deny a request for a Confederate Battle Flag specialty license plate is constitutional.[146]

Quote:Thomas believes that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. In Adarand Constructors v. Peña, for example, he wrote "there is a 'moral [and] constitutional equivalence' between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law. That [affirmative action] programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race."[169]

In Gratz v. Bollinger, Thomas said that, in his view, "a State's use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause."[170] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Thomas joined the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, who concluded that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."[171] Concurring, Thomas wrote that "if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories," and charged that the dissent carried "similarities" to the arguments of the segregationist litigants in Brown v. Board of Education.[171]

In Grutter v. Bollinger, he approvingly quoted Justice Harlan's Plessy v. Ferguson dissent: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."[172] In a concurrence in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), he wrote that the Missouri District Court "has read our cases to support the theory that black students suffer an unspecified psychological harm from segregation that retards their mental and educational development. This approach not only relies upon questionable social science research rather than constitutional principle, but it also rests on an assumption of black inferiority."[173]

So his use of his "race" as cover for his religious beliefs is laughable as is your citation and defense of it while ignoring any OTHER minority opinion on the subject at hand.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 09:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: You brought Thomas and his race into the conversation.

You don't want to "compare" any other minority to Thomas.

The SC decided to not hear the case.  Thomas dragged his race into it.  Other minorities did not.  

Thomas doesn't care about the race and sex of the fetus.  He cares about what his religion tells him.

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




So his use of his "race" as cover for his religious beliefs is laughable as is your citation and defense of it while ignoring any OTHER minority opinion on the subject at hand.  

As I thought you have no idea what the term racist means. Let me give you a hint; mentioning race is not it. You just like to spew it when you disagree with someone.

I get you have to try real hard (in this case going above and beyond the ridiculous) to defend your right to call something racist. You don't have to try so hard; it's OK.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 01:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why would it hit Thomas harder than any other judge?

Of course I did say "maybe" and that would be because of the terrible ways blacks were treated in the rural south during his upbringing. But somehow in some crazy twist of logic that's a racist thing to say. You and others may not agree with the logic and I'm not saying 100% (hence the word maybe) but to suggest it as an option damn sure isn't racist.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 01:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why would it hit Thomas harder than any other judge?

Of course I did say "maybe" and that would be because of the terrible ways blacks were treated in the rural south during his upbringing. But somehow in some crazy twist of logic that's a racist thing to say. You and others may not agree with the logic and I'm not saying 100% (hence the word maybe) but to suggest it as an option damn sure isn't racist.

Now a Caucasian stating that Hispanics are non-white very well may be. But for some reason no one has issue with the assertion.

[GMDino]

(05-29-2019, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I thought you have no idea what the term racist means. Let me give you a hint; mentioning race is not it. You just like to spew it when you disagree with someone.

I get you have to try real hard (in this case going above and beyond the ridiculous) to defend your right to call something racist. You don't have to try so hard; it's OK.

As I noted if Thomas was really concerned about HIS race it would be reflected in his votes...thus I think it's BS and using race to hide behind his politics.

Which you ignored.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 11:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: As I noted if Thomas was really concerned about HIS race it would be reflected in his votes...thus I think it's BS and using race to hide behind his politics.

Which you ignored.

Like I said: I get that you have to try hard.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really sure what's racist about MY POV, but don't let that stop you.

I suppose if you consider Hispanic to be non-white. But let's not try to compare the two, because there is none. 

I simply provided a reason why he would consider aborting a child because of race akin to Eugenics. He was a direct descendent from  American Slaves and lost his house to fire as a child. He may have a more severe outlook on the matter than you, I, or RBG. 

(05-29-2019, 11:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I did say "maybe" and that would be because of the terrible ways blacks were treated in the rural south during his upbringing. But somehow in some crazy twist of logic that's a racist thing to say. You and others may not agree with the logic and I'm not saying 100% (hence the word maybe) but to suggest it as an option damn sure isn't racist.

Why would Thomas "maybe" be hit harder by abortions based upon race? Because I don't understand how the reasons you provided would cause what you suggest.

Quote:Now a Caucasian stating that Hispanics are non-white very well may be. But for some reason no one has issue with the assertion.

According to the Census Bureau, "people who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race."

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 07:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. Why would Thomas "maybe" be hit harder by abortions based upon race?  Because I don't understand how the reasons you provided would cause what you suggest.


2. According to the Census Bureau, "people who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race."

1. Because of his experiences growing up. A poor black child in the Jim Crow south. He may have seen Blacks marginalized more than me, you, or Dino

2. EXACTLY and to assert they must be identified as non-white is............wait for it...............it's almost here.......here it comes...........RACIST

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-29-2019, 07:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Because of his experiences growing up. A poor black child in the Jim Crow south. He may have seen Blacks marginalized more than me, you, or Dino

I still fail to understand how abortions based upon race would "maybe" hit him harder than other members of the Supreme Court.

Quote:2. EXACTLY and to assert they must be identified as non-white is............wait for it...............it's almost here.......here it comes...........RACIST

According to a Pew survey, 2/3rds of Hispanics consider Hispanic their race and not their ethnicity.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 09:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. I still fail to understand how abortions based upon race would "maybe" hit him harder than other members of the Supreme Court.


2. According to a Pew survey, 2/3rds of Hispanics consider Hispanic their race and not their ethnicity.

1. I've given the reason a couple times. He's very likely seen first hand the marginalization of blacks more than anyone judging him in this forum.

2. Thanks. Not sure the relevance but thanx for the info

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2019, 09:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to a Pew survey, 2/3rds of Hispanics consider Hispanic their race and not their ethnicity.

To be fair, what one considers to be their race doesn't matter much as race is constructed based upon society's perception of you based on external factors. An individual can be categorized as different races by different people as the lines for what constitutes what race is highly subjective and often shifting based upon regional, generational, and also current trends.

But I should stop here because whenever I try to actually introduce social science into conversations about race it results in confusion for some individuals.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2019, 09:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, what one considers to be their race doesn't matter much as race is constructed based upon society's perception of you based on external factors. An individual can be categorized as different races by different people as the lines for what constitutes what race is highly subjective and often shifting based upon regional, generational, and also current trends.

But I should stop here because whenever I try to actually introduce social science into conversations about race it results in confusion for some individuals.

You mean like folks who assert Hispanics are non-whites? 

Hell I know some Hispanics that I would love for some folks in this forum to tell them they're non-white.