Betty Devos thinks (well “think” might be stretching it a bit) wants Bible Study classes, not as part of a Survey of World Religions but a standalone.
And THAT reeks of the Constitution ban on “establishment of a national religion”
I live in MS, my child attended public school. A preacher led prayer at every assembly, sports event or ceremonies. At one point, prayer went out on PA. My mega lib NYC sister and wife came for her graduation. I’ll never forget their befuddled looks as pastor droned on (my sister is an active Presbyterian)…now MS put “in God We Trust” on license plates. An atty friend is suing so that any offended can get a FREE replacement.
These states are constantly stepping out of bounds. When I question Talibangelicals here or toss Sharia out there, I get silence or better, something about what a Commie feminazi I am.
So lame …I used to define Communism to them but they are ignant cuz they WANNA BE!
Just be clear this is not aimed at you! 
It would be nice if people reporting on court decisions actually bothered to read them.
The articles from The Root which I see linked to here are generally great but this one is just lazy rehashing of what other media sources have said about Thomas’s opinion.
For one thing:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas slammed women who have abortions as heartless “eugenicists” in a 20-page opinion Tuesday opposing the high court’s majority decision not to overturn a lower court’s ruling that blocked Indiana abortion restrictions that would have stopped women from aborting due to a fetus’ sex, race or disability.
is complete cobblers.
Thomas concurred in the majority decision of the Supreme Court. His opinion adds some explanation of why and basically says “We can kick the can down the road again this time but we are going to have to deal with this issue at some point”.
The article entirely robs his words of their context and thereby fails to provide any insight into his argument.
His opinion is far more coherent and makes a far more reasoned argument than the article would have one believe.
It may still be complete cobblers and misogynistic - but if they want to say that, they need to do far more work than they have done.
It would be a far more compelling piece if they did.
Finding the source is not hard:
Thomas’s opinion starts on page 5.
I’ve read it, and I posted because I do find it “complete cobblers and misogynistic”.
And that’s fair enough. As I said, my rant wasn’t aimed at you. I was irked by what to me was sloppy journalism which fails to achieve what its author presumably intends, i.e. to show up Thomas’s flawed argument.
It starts out with a flat error on a basic factual point as indicated. Never a good start.
I don’t understand what the “According to Newsweek” and “However, according to Newsweek” sections add to the piece.
Why rehash someone else’s factual reporting? Is there some reason that is better than simply stating the same thing in your own words? I mean the judgment isn’t exactly a scoop exclusive to Newsweek. The Supreme Court publishes them. On the internet even. For free.
The article then references the Slate piece which does a far better job of tearing through Thomas’s opinion and clearly indicates that the author has actually read it for themselves.
I’m totally with you re the sloppy journalism; this simply doesn’t help.
That is some seriously fucked up shit. What the hell was he (and yes, I am assuming gender here, not without reason) thinking? That would be fun? Damn.
Christians have the most abortions.
Thread:
“Being decent takes vigilance.”
Fuckin A, it does.
I’ve been doing it for years now. At my age, men really don’t expect it, which makes teaching the lesson all the sweeter. Plus, I know how to drop into a non-obvious horse stance in a millisecond (thanks, karate!) so I don’t budge when they hit. It’s hilarious.
My wife will when its obvious she’s got one of these idiots walking towards her just stop dead on the pavement and turn her shoulder and let them walk into her rucksack.
Especially shitty are the ones who pretend they can’t see her as they walk straight into her.
“oh, I didn’t have a clue there was anyone else on the pavement, there was such an interesting butterfly/airplane/snail/shiny pebble/I was so absorbed talking to my buddy here that I forgot I needed to look where I was going but somehow I still managed to navigate across the busy road and around the pile of dog shit before I barged straight into you - the female person standing completely still with plenty of space for me to walk around.”
My wife can have some very odd things in her rucksack sometimes. Like bricks. Or 10 cans of tomatoes.
I haven’t knocked any men over (that I’m aware of - I never look back), but playing hockey sure teaches a gal how to lean in for a hit that minimizes injury risk for me, an maximizes impact for the unprepared recipient.
I also walk with purpose, almost marching. That stance gets most people to yield. In the afternoon, I walk with a half-gallon Yeti canister, and intentionally swing it. You wanna fuck with the person visibly displaying a flail? No. No, you do not.
He’s the real victim.
That’s an impressively specific fetish. But you can’t tell me that cruising the streets asking random women if they’ll satisfy it for you is a genuine attempt to find willing participants…
I once dropped a backpack full of tools (I was working construction at the time) on the wrist of a man attempting to finger me through my filthy work coverall (pro tip: there’s no entry point there) on a very crowded subway car during rush hour. A very surprised man got off hurriedly at the next stop.
“It’s not a sex-offender thing. It was an addiction. Inappropriate behavior was the rush." – Christopher Pagano
It wasn’t even "Murican cheese!
Homophobic as well of course but the demand that they ‘perform’ for the thugs is pretty much an indicator that this was as much about misogyny as anything else.
