Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Arming Against Coronavirus

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Arming Against Coronavirus

    This informative article says the coronavirus fraud is prompting some Americans to buy a gun. Whatever their reason not one ‘gun owner’ voiced concerns about law-abiding Americans submitting to background checks before they get a gun.

    "Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks."

    Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman's Warehouse in Milpitas, Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane's 10-day waiting period was complete. No end date was given for the order, but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect. Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse.

    The time it takes to ‘pass’ a background is classic misdirection. Americans submitting to background checks is the issue. Bottom line: Background checks must end before the U.S. Supreme Court and state legislatures wipe the Second Amendment off the books forever.


    Unable to do business, the store went belly-up in May. Kane had no way to pick up his gun. He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county. He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29, 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun.

    First-Time Gun Buyers Explain How Coronavirus Changed Their Politics
    Stephen Gutowski
    May 23, 2020 5:00 AM

    https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/f...heir-politics/

    Socialists/Communists work from a long list of conspiracies engineered to erase private sector freedoms and the Constitution itself. Every Democrat Party conspiracy begins and ends with confiscating guns. That is why every Communist conspiracy hinges on disarming the American people. So long as the government does not know the locations of hundreds of million of guns every other conspiracy is doomed to failure without background checks followed by confiscation.

    Come November, conservative Americans should never forget that President Trump, along with his establishment Republican pals, endorse background checks.


    Background checks has always been a backdoor approach to registration; so it comes as no surprise that Democrats want more BCs.

    As I said many times, the government fears the location of the guns they do not know about. Confiscating guns is a little difficult when the government does not know where the guns live. In truth, media mouths have just as much to fear from law-abiding unknown gun-owners than does the government. Government stooges in the media must know that if Democrat gun-grabbers bring this country to violent revolution media mouths will be the first ones to get shot.

    Never forget that if you own a gun and your name is on a list of any kind the government has that list. As much as I respect the NRA, there is no doubt in my mind the government has the names of everybody on the NRA’s membership roll.

    A substantial number of Americans see no harm in background checks or a national registry. The problem is in convincing EVERY private sector American that they will lose a constitutional Right along with gun- owners. Bottom line: Americans who are being conned by Democrats are begging to die victims right alongside those gun-owners the federal government will disarm.

    The sole purpose of background checks is to set up a data bank so the federal government knows the location of every gun. So how come not one media mouth ever suggested that the government must delete all records of every person after they clear a background check? (I am probably being naive. There is no way in hell the government will delete an essential component of confiscation.)

    When you get right down to it, why should Americans believe anything government officials say about background checks when they lie all of the time?

    You can believe the one thing government liars say. The police and the military will obey when they are ordered to confiscate all of the guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans?

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...72#post3631272

    Finally, an invading army pales by comparison to a full-scale revolution waged against the federal government:


    Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto is credited with saying:

    "To invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle."

    Yamamoto never said it; nevertheless, Democrat gun-grabbers are wishing for an invading enemy. [First from the defunct Soviet Union now China.]

    There is no doubt that Democrats would welcome a foreign military à la Vidkun Quisling the same way they welcome illegal alien invaders.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...12#post3088212
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,057
    Thanks
    46,497
    Thanked 68,258 Times in 51,660 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    This informative article says the coronavirus fraud is prompting some Americans to buy a gun. Whatever their reason not one ‘gun owner’ voiced concerns about law-abiding Americans submitting to background checks before they get a gun.

    "Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks.".....
    BWAAA-HA-HA-HAAA Scott Kane is a fucking moron who will most likely shoot himself in the leg if that's what he believes.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,396
    Thanks
    6,567
    Thanked 12,092 Times in 9,629 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 500 Times in 474 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    BWAAA-HA-HA-HAAA Scott Kane is a fucking moron who will most likely shoot himself in the leg if that's what he believes.
    the gig is up. the new world order is cancelled. you lost.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,057
    Thanks
    46,497
    Thanked 68,258 Times in 51,660 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    the gig is up. the new world order is cancelled. you lost.
    Quit taking those drugs; they're making you delusional. You're seeing things that don't exist. In a sane person I'd counter that you're making a Straw Man argument, but since your reputation is well known, like Trump, I think you actually believe the shit you write. With your other posts, that adds up to some form of delusional disorder.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,396
    Thanks
    6,567
    Thanked 12,092 Times in 9,629 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 500 Times in 474 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Quit taking those drugs; they're making you delusional. You're seeing things that don't exist. In a sane person I'd counter that you're making a Straw Man argument, but since your reputation is well known, like Trump, I think you actually believe the shit you write. With your other posts, that adds up to some form of delusional disorder.
    give it a rest, rosie O'Donnell.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,057
    Thanks
    46,497
    Thanked 68,258 Times in 51,660 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
    give it a rest, rosie O'Donnell.
    Nothing to rest, Dylann Roof.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The OP is promoting a new coronavirus is a hoax conspiracy
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    The OP is promoting a new coronavirus is a hoax conspiracy

    To jimmymccready:
    You are accusing the wrong guy:

    The coronavirus scam is a conspiracy engineered by parasites after billions of tax dollars to pay for socialized medicine that would ultimately pay for universal healthcare. The conspiracy can be seen in television’s wall-to-wall coverage covering up the real objective. POPULATION CONTROLS.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...94#post3537794

    Or maybe you dusted off Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972):

    The inevitable happened when the Party of Liars realized they were left with one choice —— blame everyone for the things they are guilty of. I am not certain when the liars saw their only option, but the option was there in 1971 in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...72#post2797672

    NOTE: Six or seven years ago message board Libs came up the idea of calling every conservative message a conspiracy theory in an effort to have them deleted, or moved to the Conspiracy forum. (Every multiple issues board I looked at has a Conspiracy forum.) Conspiracy became a dirty word when it applied to conservative opinions and ideals. In recent years the public learned that everything Socialists/Communists do is a conspiracy. The difference between now and then is that liberals are pissed off because their strategy bit them on the ass so they dropped their scheme. I assume you did not get the memo.

    Scott Morefield stops short of calling coronavirus a hoax, but it is all there:

    In order to attempt to stop a pandemic that kills far less than half of one percent of those who contract it, including a statistically infinitesimal percentage of those under 65, most of the world conducted a massive, overreaching, draconian lockdown effort that threw millions into poverty, shuttered businesses for good, disrupted critical supply chains, demolished liberties, and left much of the global economy in ruins that will take years, if not decades to rebuild. To call this ongoing absurdity an overreach is to put it mildly, but overreach is the term that seemingly has defined everything we’ve done attempting to stop a virus that has terrified people far beyond what its capabilities would suggest.

    As more and more data comes to light, it’s becoming increasingly clear that, had we decided to employ a more measured approach like that of Sweden, we would not only have flattened the curve and not overwhelmed hospitals, but we would also be much further along toward the ultimate goal of obtaining herd immunity from the virus. Yet instead, we chose to burn the proverbial house down to deal with an ant infestation. We sank the ship to kill the rats below deck. We nuked the desert to get rid of a few scorpions. We … well, you get the picture. Instead of taking steps to isolate and protect the vulnerable, we closed schools, shuttered businesses, and essentially locked healthy people in their houses for months.

    We tried an approach that hasn’t been tried in the entire history of pandemics, and we failed miserably. “But but but, the curve was flattened and deaths were kept to a minimum,” you say. To which I would argue that the curve would have been flattened anyway with a more measured approach and, while we may have had a few more deaths, we would be well on our way to herd immunity with a life-sustaining economy not completely off the rails. Instead, now we’re talking about having to wear facemasks for years and dealing with a potential second wave that could make our overlords force us to repeat this whole lockdown nonsense again in the Fall.

    Most lockdown critics blame both right and left for the initial shutdowns, and I certainly understand where they’re coming from (though I’d like to humbly point out that I’ve been on the ‘right’ side of history on this since the beginning). Much was unknown, and some thought the death rate could reach as high as five percent. Though it’s obvious that President Trump wanted to do the right thing from the start, he was likely told by his advisors, especially the medical ones, that he would have blood on his hands if he erred on the side of inaction here. Fair enough. Were any of us in his situation, maybe we would have done the same thing, even if we didn’t want to.

    So yeah, both sides are at fault to some degree, but those on the left have clearly been the ones loathe to learn from the world’s mistakes. Exhibit A? How about blue-state governors all across the land holding on to their newfound godlike power like it’s the last “hot & ready” Krispy Kreme doughnut? Of course, it’s not like any of us are surprised by this. Sadly, such tendencies towards overreach when dealing with a problem is par for the course with leftists. Give them a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

    No, their almost pathological desire to stick with the notion that locking down an entire population is an effective, long-term strategy for dealing with coronavirus isn’t surprising at all when you think about it. After all, they’ve taken the same approach toward gun violence for years. Just ‘ban’ guns, they reason, and gun violence will magically disappear. Instead of a functional, freedom-oriented society where good people have the right and means of self-defense, leftists would impose draconian gun legislation on the law-abiding, leaving the criminals, who have no intention of following gun laws, the ability to prey on society at will.

    We all know that schools have been among the most vulnerable places for gun violence, for a variety of horrible reasons. However, instead of locking them down and protecting them with good people with guns, like trained teachers, principals, and resource officers, leftists reason that it is somehow easier to make guns magically disappear from the entire country.

    Parenthetically, public school teachers are paid with tax dollars while schools are closed. That certainly smacks of an education industry conspiracy.





    Follow their twisted logic to protecting the vulnerable, particularly those in nursing homes, during the coronavirus pandemic, and you’ll see the tragic irony. We knew right from the beginning that this virus affected the elderly and sick to a greater degree. However, instead of locking down nursing homes from the start, certain blue-state governors, most notably New York’s Andrew Cuomo, mandated that they not be allowed to refuse COVID patients. And of course, what literally everyone knew would happen is exactly what DID happen - thousands more died than otherwise would have. In other words, the governors of New York and Pennsylvania “protected” their citizens from coronavirus by locking down the healthy and sending sick people into the one place everyone knew should be protected.

    It makes absolutely zero sense, just like their approach to guns. But when has leftist “logic” ever squared with reality?

    Coronavirus, Gun Violence, and Lame Leftist 'Logic'
    Scott Morefield
    Posted: May 25, 2020 12:01 AM

    https://townhall.com/columnists/scot...logic-n2569389
    Last edited by Flanders; 05-25-2020 at 06:19 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    Hermes Thoth (05-25-2020)

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,396
    Thanks
    6,567
    Thanked 12,092 Times in 9,629 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 500 Times in 474 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    The OP is promoting a new coronavirus is a hoax conspiracy
    you gonna cry?

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Nope, but the Trumpers will cry tears of increasing misery and horror after November elections and for the rest of their lives.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Scott Morefield stops short of calling coronavirus a hoax, but it is all there:
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Nope, but the Trumpers will cry tears of increasing misery and horror after November elections and for the rest of their lives.

    To jimmymccready:
    Not as long, or as loudly, as Democrats cried when Hillary Clinton lost a ‘sure thing.’

    Nothing is more frustrating to me than fools cluttering up my threads. Fools believed everything Democrats told them since the LBJ years. Believing the coronavirus tops all the other frauds Democrats laid on them.

    You and your kind are in a class all by yourselves. You are a waste of time and space. I doubt if you will realize what they are doing to you when they get you are a table:



    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The GOP, who have taken out of context comments to make unwarranted claims about government and coronavirus, who lose the coming elections nationally, state, and locally in bigly ways.

    They will have earned with with their RT connections, propaganda fake news and alt facts, and voter suppression tactics.

    Either the GOP changes to represent all Americans after these elections or it will die.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Socialists/Communists work from a long list of conspiracies engineered to erase private sector freedoms and the Constitution itself. Every Democrat Party conspiracy begins and ends with confiscating guns. That is why every Communist conspiracy hinges on disarming the American people. So long as the government does not know the locations of hundreds of million of guns every other conspiracy is doomed to failure without background checks followed by confiscation.
    Gun grabbers take the prize for this one:



    Lancaster’s son, a 5th grader and Boy Scout who’s conscientiously working toward the rank of Eagle Scout, has taken three levels of archery classes and learned to shoot Airsoft and BB guns/rifles. His archery equipment and Airsoft and BB guns/rifles are stored in his room on a pegboard. After his BB gun was spotted during a recent virtual school meeting, a screenshot was taken and sent to the school safety officer with a concern that the “weapon was not secured,” the school safety officer contacted police, and police “felt a home visit was warranted.”

    According to emails Lancaster provided to a Baltimore television station, school officials also felt her son was in violation of the district’s weapons policy “because he could not ‘bring’ weapons to school, just as he could not ‘bring’ weapons to virtual class.”

    Police Search Home After Teachers See 11-Year-Old’s BB Gun Hanging on Wall During Virtual Classroom
    Posted at 7:15 pm on June 12, 2020
    by Jennifer Van Laar

    https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/...ual-classroom/

    Gun grabbers have the U.S. Army in their sights:


    The U.S. Army trained recruits in Quick Kill techniques using Daisy Model 99 BB guns to improve soldiers using their weapons in the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1973.[5] The technique was developed for the Army by Bobby Lamar "Lucky" McDaniel and Mike Jennings. The sights were removed from the BB guns for this training. The name was later changed to "Quick Fire" training.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_gun
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The time it takes to ‘pass’ a background is classic misdirection. Americans submitting to background checks is the issue. Bottom line: Background checks must end before the U.S. Supreme Court and state legislatures wipe the Second Amendment off the books forever.

    First Amendment


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Gun grabbers on the High Court should resign and petition the government if they insist the Second Amendment should be abolished:


    The Supreme Court on Monday denied a slew of gun-rights challenges focused on everything from state "assault weapons" bans to safety requirements and permit issues, sparking a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas who accused his fellow justices of "looking the other way" on Second Amendment cases.

    Second Amendment advocates were hoping the High Court would take up at least some of the legal challenges to gun-control laws that have passed in New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Those cases were denied certiorari, meaning the High Court will not take them up.

    The lack of action sparked some justices to dissent. Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to take up Rogers v. Grewal, a challenge to New Jersey's gun-carry law that allows government officials to subjectively deny permits. Thomas—joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—said the state government's requirement that residents provide a reason for exercising a constitutional right warranted judicial oversight.

    "This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights," Thomas wrote. "And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens' Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way."

    Justice Thomas Accuses Supreme Court of Dodging Gun Cases
    Stephen Gutowski
    June 15, 2020 8:00 PM

    https://freebeacon.com/courts/justic...ing-gun-cases/

    At the very least, Supreme Court gun grabbers should resign and devote their time and energy working for a constitutional amendment instead of doing their dirty work like a:


    sneak thief


    : a thief who steals whatever is readily available without using violence or forcibly breaking into buildings

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../sneak%20thief
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    sneak thief

    applies to this guy:






    Six months ago, when journalist Christopher Caldwell published a book asserting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had grown into a “rival constitution” that superseded the old Constitution, everyone laughed. The New York Times review accused Caldwell of rehashing old segregationist arguments. Singled out for particular ridicule was the sentence on the penultimate page of The Age of Entitlement where Caldwell advises conservatives that “the only way back to the free country of their ideals was through the repeal of the civil rights laws.” How could the fate of American freedom depend on something so radical, and so unlikely, as the repeal of the Civil Rights Act?

    No one is laughing now.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, has decreed that the anti-discrimination protections afforded to women under Title VII of the CRA must be extended to gays, lesbians, and the transgendered, because all of these are discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

    Gorsuch is not extending civil Rights —— he is extending special privileges to a new category.


    This is not a narrow ruling that just means you can’t fire a person for being gay. Extending civil rights law to protect a whole new category carries with it a host of ancillary protections.

    Harassment is a form of workplace discrimination. An employee can’t be subjected to a “hostile work environment” because of their membership in a protected class. Under Bostock, an LGBT employee could allege a hostile work environment if a coworker expressed the wrong opinion about Prop 8 or said he believed a person’s sex is determined at birth. Some employers are already justifying firing workers who won’t use someone’s preferred pronouns because discrimination law requires it. Misgendering, they say, is harassment.

    Diversity training is a multi-billion dollar industry because of Title VII. Companies hire consultants to give seminars on “white fragility” not because they are progressive but because it protects them from lawsuits. They have a better chance of prevailing in an employment discrimination case if they can point to diversity training programs as evidence of their commitment to civil rights.

    De facto hiring quotas are another inevitable consequence of civil rights law as it has been interpreted. If a company doesn’t employ a minority roughly in proportion to its share of the population, someone from an underrepresented group can use that disparity as evidence that the company discriminated against them. (Gallup estimates that 4.5% of the population is gay.)

    It is no use protesting that the text of Title VII doesn’t mandate any of this, or that the Bostock opinion limits itself to outlawing explicit policies against hiring LGBT workers. The whole story of employment discrimination law, from 1964 to today, is an endless parade of new mandates not specified in the statute being hatched by human resources departments, adopted by companies eager to fend off lawsuits, and ultimately incorporated into case law.

    Anti-discrimination law is kept vague for precisely this reason. It gives the activists more room to get creative. In the 1970s, the federal Justice Department begged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue a specific rule on how closely a company’s workforce had to match broader community demographics to avoid a discrimination charge (they suggested a cutoff of 80 percent). The EEOC preferred to keep its rule vague.

    Title VII doesn’t require performance evaluations, grievance procedures, written job descriptions, speech codes, minority hiring targets, or diversity bonuses—yet all of these have been extrapolated from it. More than 80,000 charges of discrimination are filed with the EEOC in an average year, and tens of thousands of those eventually become lawsuits or five- or six-figure settlements. Employers have good reason to want to act defensively.

    And of course the Bostock ruling won’t stay confined to employment law. The majority opinion protests, disingenuously, that “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes” are “questions for future cases.” But federal law is full of prohibitions on sex discrimination (Justice Alito’s dissent lists over 100 such statutes), and every one of those will have to be reconsidered in light of today’s ruling.

    Gorsuch claims that yesterday’s ruling was grounded in judicial modesty. It doesn’t matter that sodomy was illegal in 49 states when the Civil Rights Act was passed, he says. If you can’t fire a woman for marrying a man, you can’t fire a man for doing the same without discriminating on the basis of sex, simple as that. Alito’s dissent accuses such rigid textualism of treating laws “as if they were messages picked up by a powerful radio telescope from a distant and utterly unknown civilization.” Both justices invoke Antonin Scalia to support their arguments.

    Conservatives are split on the question of which justice is the real judicial activist, but both sides agree that in this case the solution is obvious: amend the law. It would be a curious silver lining to this massive defeat for conservatives if its ultimate effect were to be the rollback of the Civil Rights Act, which seemed so unthinkable when Caldwell’s book came out in January, a real political possibility. Once conservatives start thinking about what changes would have to be made to civil rights law before the left’s grip on our country’s institutions can begin to be loosened, it won’t stop with clarifications to the definition of sex.

    Justice Gorsuch Just Opened Pandora’s Box
    June 16, 2020 | 12:01 am
    Helen Andrews

    https://www.theamericanconservative....-pandoras-box/

    Incidentally, regardless of the Constitution, Democrats always find the needed vote among so-called strict constructionists. I smelled another liberal wolf in sheep’s clothing when television mouths pumped up Gorsuch and Kavenaugh like they were the Second Coming of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

    Maintaining the Court’s balance is biggest load of judicial bullshit television mouths ever dumped on the public. The so-called balance will always lean left. Have you ever seen it go to the right? I never did! Gorsuch and Kavanaugh certainly did not move the Court to the right.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...71#post3124571
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. Now it’s the liberals who are arming up
    By Ass Man in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-25-2016, 07:02 PM
  2. Obama is arming Al Queda .. Again
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-02-2013, 05:12 PM
  3. Arming Teachers
    By Howey in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 10:37 AM
  4. Is arming teachers enough?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2012, 05:01 PM
  5. Is arming everyone a good idea?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-03-2012, 11:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •