The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[BP4Prez]

Pro-Abortion Activists in Blood-Soaked Outfits Brandish toy DOLLS outside Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Virginia Home and say ending Roe v. Wade will trigger spike in forced births

Pro-abortion activists dressed in blood-soaked outfits and brandishing dolls held a protest outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday as the court is poised to overturn Roe V. Wade in the coming weeks.

Protesters from the Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights group gathered outside Barrett's home in Falls Church, Virginia, waving signs calling on the Supreme Court to protect women's federal abortion rights.

The group also carried dolls and wore white pants with blood stains around the crotch, which they said represented an increase in the number of forced births that would take place if Barrett and her fellow conservative justices strike down Roe v. Wade.

Members of the Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights group protested outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday, calling on her to uphold women's federal right to abortion

The protesters had their mouths tapped, wore blood-stained pants and carried around toy dolls during the demonstration. They said they were dawning symbols of the forced births that would take place if Roe V. Wade were overturned

The women marched outside Barrett's home wearing white pants with blood stains around the crotch area

The high tensions over security concerns come as a string of acts of vandalism and arson are taking place against pro-life clinics throughout the nation, which the FBI announced on Friday that it would be investigating as acts of terrorism after the radical pro-choice group, Jane's Revenge, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The group also claimed responsibility for throwing Molotov cocktail into the Wisconsin Family Center, in Madison, on May 8, causing severe fire damage (pictured)

Pro-choice protesters brandish toy DOLLS outside Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's home | Daily Mail Online

Do they realize how ridiculous they look?

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Supreme Court prolongs wait for highly-anticipated decision in case expected to overturn Roe v. Wade

 

[n_huffhines]

Supreme Court: Schools teaching religion can't be denied state aid

 

[Sea Ray]

Supreme Court: Schools teaching religion can't be denied state aid

It's depressing that case even made it to the Supreme Court. Of course that's religious discrimination

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Left wing kooks

That's redundant

 

[lawgator1]

It's depressing that case even made it to the Supreme Court. Of course that's religious discrimination

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

 

[RockyTop85]

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

The money is in place of a public school for rural areas with few kids and the choice to go to the religious school is up to the family. I wouldn’t mind it.

In fact, it seems like a pretty good system.

 

[whodeycin85]

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

Seems like tax money is going to have drag queen story time...

 

[landscapingvol]

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

Don’t even discuss slippery slopes and precedents based off of the crap the Left has shoved down people’s throats the last several decades whether it is Roe v Wade, trans rights, gay marriage, Affordable Care Act, etc.

 

[allvol123]

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

I’m not ok with my federal tax dollars going to transport any kids to any school.

 

[Vol423]

It's depressing that case even made it to the Supreme Court. Of course that's religious discrimination

It's not surprising in the least. The liberal left has completely twisted the notion of separation of church and state, and conservatives have generally done a poor job of standing up to them on this issue.

 

[lawgator1]

Wha

The money is in place of a public school for rural areas with few kids and the choice to go to the religious school is up to the family. I wouldn’t mind it.

In fact, it seems like a pretty good system.

What about in a non-rural area? Plenty of public school options but the Smiths decide to send their kid to private Catholic school -- use tax payer dollars for tha

 

[85SugarVol]

Pro-Abortion Activists in Blood-Soaked Outfits Brandish toy DOLLS outside Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Virginia Home and say ending Roe v. Wade will trigger spike in forced births

Pro-abortion activists dressed in blood-soaked outfits and brandishing dolls held a protest outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday as the court is poised to overturn Roe V. Wade in the coming weeks.

Protesters from the Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights group gathered outside Barrett's home in Falls Church, Virginia, waving signs calling on the Supreme Court to protect women's federal abortion rights.

The group also carried dolls and wore white pants with blood stains around the crotch, which they said represented an increase in the number of forced births that would take place if Barrett and her fellow conservative justices strike down Roe v. Wade.

Members of the Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights group protested outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday, calling on her to uphold women's federal right to abortion

The protesters had their mouths tapped, wore blood-stained pants and carried around toy dolls during the demonstration. They said they were dawning symbols of the forced births that would take place if Roe V. Wade were overturned

The women marched outside Barrett's home wearing white pants with blood stains around the crotch area

The high tensions over security concerns come as a string of acts of vandalism and arson are taking place against pro-life clinics throughout the nation, which the FBI announced on Friday that it would be investigating as acts of terrorism after the radical pro-choice group, Jane's Revenge, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The group also claimed responsibility for throwing Molotov cocktail into the Wisconsin Family Center, in Madison, on May 8, causing severe fire damage (pictured)

Pro-choice protesters brandish toy DOLLS outside Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's home | Daily Mail Online

Why are only the “women” wearing bloody pants?

Bigoted facking b!tches…

 

[RockyTop85]

Wha

What about in a non-rural area? Plenty of public school options but the Smiths decide to send their kid to private Catholic school -- use tax payer dollars for tha

That’s not the question presented by this case which, IIRC, deals with a system in place in rural Maine where there are no public schools.

But, still yes. In my opinion, if the school system has a voucher program to refund tax dollars for families who elect not to use the public school system (which I think is a fine idea) that money should be able to be spent on the education of the parents’ choosing so long as it meets established standards for quality.

 

[Vol423]

From the linked article above, this statement is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Jxn Vol]

It is amazing to me that folks fail to realize that it’s actually the tax payer’s money. It isn’t the government’s money. If a taxpaying parent wants to use their taxes to spend on their child’s education then by all means…

 

[lawgator1]

That’s not the question presented by this case which, IIRC, deals with a system in place in rural Maine where there are no public schools.

But, still yes. In my opinion, if the school system has a voucher program to refund tax dollars for families who elect not to use the public school system (which I think is a fine idea) that money should be able to be spent on the education of the parents’ choosing so long as it meets established standards for quality.

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

 

[Jxn Vol]

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

Most religious schools are accredited. And it’s amazing, their students actually get accepted to colleges. Many with scholarships.

 

[RockyTop85]

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/regprivschl.pdf

The state legislature sets the standards for quality or designates an appropriate executive agency to do so, just like they do now.

If that comes into conflict with a religious belief then it would be examined under the free exercise clause rubric.

 

[Sea Ray]

The dissent is rightfully worried about the slippery slope on this and other recent decisions.

Would you be okay with your tax dollars going to transport and pay for students to go to a school based on Islamic religion and even law?

If my tax dollars are going to pay for transportation to Christian schools then yes, other religions should be included as well, assuming they're accredited of course

 

[hog88]

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

Is your google broke?

Private School Approval | Department of Education

 

[utvolpj]

Who sets the standards for quality? And what if the religious organization behind the program thinks those standards conflict with their religious viewpoints?

A similar org to who sets the standards for attorneys. They have to be trustworthy right?

 

[Sea Ray]

Wha

What about in a non-rural area? Plenty of public school options but the Smiths decide to send their kid to private Catholic school -- use tax payer dollars for tha

Here you're moving the goal posts and that's either dishonest or uninformed on your part. These kids did NOT have another option. From the article:

At issue was an unusual program in Maine that provides subsidies for education in rural districts that don't have their own high school.

 

[hog88]

A similar org to who sets the standards for attorneys. They have to be trustworthy right?

It has to be better than that organization.

 

[hog88]

Typical LG, more concerned about a non-secular organization getting taxpayer money than the fact a public school isn't available in some parts of the state.