Gromnir

well, there were some kinda brainfart with this. simple breakdown: for nonstick am recommending the aforementioned zwilling (madura or forte). for cast iron, we recommend lodge. for stainless steel, made in is our first choice, but all clad and misen (5-ply for both brands) is comparable and as we noted, our 3-ply all clad is more than satisfactory. side note: have seen misen sets, which is already reasonable priced, offered shocking cheap, particular during the holidays. we rare want sets which invariably include items we will never use, but if you are willing to be patient, is likely you find a nice misen deal at some point. costco also does all-clad deals from time-to-time, but is ordinarily the large sets which is having special deals and we never need a full set these days. HA! Good Fun! ps misen cookware is made in china, so...

t-fal (tefal not US) is subject to the warping bartimeaus references. HA! Good Fun!

what do you want? non-stick? pretty? stainless steel? what is your cooking surface? a cast iron pan, properly seasoned, will cover most needs save eggs. cast iron is oven safe and a lodge cast iron skillet is extreme cheap and will outlive you if proper care is practiced. a cast iron enameled dutch oven (the 7.5 qt doubles as a stock pot) and braiser is also less than obvious workhorses which will handle most needs, are oven safe, distribute heat like a dream and is durable. 'course they is heavy, which is also part o' what makes 'em such effective cooking implements. with a cast iron skillet, braiser and large dutch oven, add a non-stick pan or two and most o' your cooking needs is gonna be covered. you may buy lodge for 1/3 to 1/4 o' le creuset but the difference in quality is not extreme. for most stuff not in the cast iron or non stick we use made in, but is not a great value pick. more reasonable, for non-stick, am gonna admit we love these: https://www.zwilling.com/us/zwilling/cookware/madura-plus/ these pans is heavy and durable. am s'posing if we didn't have our made in pots and pans we would go all clad or misen for any nonstick needs. we also have a bunch o' 3-ply all clad, and have little room for complaint, but our made in is the gear we use nowadays. HA! Good Fun! ps carbon steel is kinda the new thing and am admitted curious, but we got little personal experience with decent carbon steel cookware.

HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

one thing to clear up is the misunderstanding 'bout J. Alito comments. have already commented we do not share Alito's faith in a history and tradition analysis, but is nothing inherent political 'bout it save how in practice it inevitably favours conservative interests. interpret a law is the role o' a Justice, and what objective measures is there for doing so? to question the traditions and history o' a law to give words meaning when the law were penned? tradition and history leading up to 1791 and 1868 is gonna necessarily exclude a whole lotta people, nevertheless, is not inherent political to decide such is a good approach to interpreting laws. Alito has been consistent with this nonsense and we got a low opinion for his legal and history scholarship, but am thinking is self serving o' liberals to dismiss Alito opinions as political motivated. oh, and so is clear, am most assured not an Alito supporter, mcconnell comments as you note is staking out a an irrefutable fact followed by a functional impossibility sans change to filibuster, a change am suspecting he would avoid even if republicans gain control o' the senate just so republicans would have an excuse as to why in spite o' their best efforts, they could not create a national ban on abortion. is the same kinda political strategy which went into the faux fight v. roe which has existed for five decades. and fair enough on ted cruz, but he is a senator from texas, so his constituency is the folks who created the heretofore improbable bounty scheme which gave private citizens the right to sue those individuals who aided in abortion. however, ted is most assured not a doofus even if he inexplicable shows he has limited people skills and an utter contempt for those he s'posed represents. ted cruz is arguable a superior legal authority than at least four o' the Justices current sitting on the Court and only two is clear outta his league. he wears cowboy boots and says stuff which resonates with the qanon and maga crowd. he is also as mercenary as mitch mcconnell with having the skill to pull off the machinations, but is only a handful o' people in Congress with as big a brain as ted cruz. HA! Good Fun!

we poach eggs frequent in part thanks to the bag hack. makes easier particular if am doing many at one time. for large numbers, we use different colored twist ties on the bags so we know the order in which our eggs went in the pot. we should learn a blender approach for hollandaise, but the reason we don't learn is literal 'cause we enjoy hollandaise too much. we got a glass bowl which works ideal as a jerry-rigged double boiler over one o' our sauce pans and we has become quite adept at hollandaise, but is nevertheless a bit more time consuming and finicky than the fool-proof blender methods we has seen recommended. problem is we would likely have hollandaise on something at least once a week if were ez to make in our blender. am recollecting shady is not a personal fan o' eggs, so is nice you did the eggs benedict for the missus. HA! Good Fun!

hard to believe the rock n' roll hall o' fame continues to snub pat benatar. shameful. converse, how many people here may name a paul butterfield blues band tune... other than Gromnir? heck, elvin bishop goes into the hall of fame in 2016 a year after the paul butterfield blues band which he were a member. am kinda a fan o' paul butterfield (harmonica) and elvin bishop (guitar) but even we can't explain how they get a hall o' fame nod and pat benatar does not. HA! Good Fun!

not sure where the disconnect is. first, don't confuse gop goals with the motives o' Justices or legal scholars opposed to roe. sure there is overlap, but not in the way you likely believe. roe is a particular noteworthy example 'cause as has been stated previous, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, previous to becoming a Justice, were public critical o' roe. lawrence tribe, perhaps the most recognized Constitutional law scholar in the country, and a liberal firebrand nowadays, were excoriating the reasoning o' the roe majority and concurrences in the decade after it were decided. legal philosophy is not same as party affiliation... which is why justice thomas' fall has been so disappointing. most Justices don't give a fig for politics, at least not where it conflicts with their legal philosophy. also, as we noted already, republicans is not monolithic. mitch mcconnell did not want a real roe fight, even if he deserves as much credit for making the overturning o' roe possible as any Justice. mitch still won't talk 'bout the implications o' roe. what is ted cruz talking 'bout today? the leak. again, 'cause may have gone unnoticed, polls show americans as a whole is overwhelming in favour o' maintaining roe, and mitch and other republicans concerned with winning back Congress and the Presidency is as aware o' that fact as anybody. sure, to keep the evangelicals happy, folks who has shown in the past they has questionable party loyalty, mitch and other national republicans put on a good show o' fighting for the demise o' roe, but killing roe is bad politics given the fact it galvanizes typical torpid democrats (as trump's mishandling o' covid did) and recognizing that near 50% o' republicans in fact support some kinda right to abortion. 'course the 50/50 split is not a thing in many red states, which is why we specific observed national republicans were having a different pov o' roe compared to those in states such as texas and louisiana. yeah, we has noted how 'cause o' our curious republican system o' democracy functions, the far-right has gained increasing and disproportionate influence in the gop. american politics as a whole has become increasing polarized in the last decade. the republican party has struggled with keeping working class whites, but trump came along and changed the dynamic. the one signature legislative effort passed during the trump administration were a tax cut which largely benefited the rich. nevertheless, when republican leaders criticized trump for january 6 on the days following the insurrection, the following happened: the thing is, is doubtful much more than half o' those folks calling graham a traitor wanted roe overturned. polls suggest is ~50%. again, so is clear, am not suggesting all republicans are disappointed by the prospect o' roe being overturned. particular for catholics and evangelicals who is convinced abortion represents mass murder on a scale measured in the thousands, overturning roe were a deadly serious issue and they will continue to fight in every state to undermine abortion protections. the thing is, other than a couple notable examples such as J. kavanaugh, thomas, and J. sotomayor, politics is a tertiary concern at best. and nationally, is no battle republicans wanna be embroiled when they maybe have 50% o' their own party supporting and democrats overwhelming oppose. is not good politics. heck, even joe rogan expressed his support for a woman's right to choose, although he clear weren't educated as to what the right actual entails. nevertheless, rogan's curious brand o' politics resonates with a whole lotta young and male republicans, more so than does mitch mcconnell or marjorie taylor greene. republicans are divided on roe. is why it is not an issue most national republicans want to fight. edit to avoid a double-post: while this kinda protest, as long as it stays on public streets and remains non-violent, is perfect legal, it is nevertheless unfortunate. the polarization o' national politics has brought us back to the bad old days o' the 1920s or 1850s. no doubt many believe J. Kavanaugh deserves this treatment, but consider your reaction if a maga crowd were protesting outside the home o' aoc or J. Sotomayor. HA! Good Fun! ps so it is clear, as much as am thinking most republicans have not wanted a real abortion fight, and they most definite don't want it to be a defining issue in the upcoming midterms, am thinking it is too late to take a more moderate stance. roe being overturned means the gop politicians needs pick a side and is gonna be impossible to sudden go pro choice after public advocating pro life.

After the leaked Roe opinion, Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court can't be bullied "We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said. ... Virginia Thomas urged White House chief to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 election, texts show The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas’s stated goals in the messages was for lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team. Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts Richard Hasen, an expert in election law who teaches at the University of California, Irvine, also believes that Justice Thomas should never have participated in the case weighing whether Congress had the right to review Trump’s papers. Hasen told me, “Given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former President’s chief of staff, Justice Thomas should not have heard any cases” involving disputes over the 2020 election or Congress’s investigation of the January 6th riots. It has now become clear, Hasen said, that “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.” is it possible justice thomas don't realize his comments would at best ring hollow given his wife's involvement in the Stop The Steal movement? regardless, the bullying thomas believes is current directed at The Court in the wake o' alito's leaked opinion is precise the kinda political free speech even his narrow reading o' the First Amendment is designed to protect. but perhaps we missed the hundreds and thousands o' roe supporters who stormed the United States Supreme Court building in a bid to prevent the draft opinion from becoming a final ruling? our opinion o' justice thomas has been complete altered these last couple o' years. pre 2016-17 thomas had earned our grudging respect for his role as a consistent and principled judge if not his skill as a justice o' The Court. 2022 thomas leaves us with feelings o' mild disgust given his new role as a partisan creature who obvious has no sense o' self awareness. HA! Good Fun!

since 2019, crime has increased in the US regardless o' whether is democrat or republican jurisdictions, so a bit o' the conservative wailing 'bout crime in california or democrat run cities is misleading. fbi and other law enforcement agencies predicted a pandemic related upturn in crime, so... duh. that being said, the post floyd responses by municipalities to address law enforcement concerns has exacerbated issues in a few burgs 'round the nation. expected post pandemic increases coupled with inefficiency due to changing policies and personnel is a double hit. as often as not, the changes made by cities were warranted and overdue, but is not ez to sell unavoidable costs of change... which is precise why meaningful change is so rare in politics. have linked articles in the past o' this thread showing how efforts to restructure law enforcement is not a one-year exercise but more a long-term goal. is ez to blame on defund (fox news exploits every opportunity to do so) but perhaps the biggest reason for more crime is inevitable resistance from police and their unions to change, at times requiring near complete change in personnel. those d-bag cops who contributed to the culture o' casual violence which resulted in the death o' george floyd (and the countless episodes o' excessive violence short o' homicide levels not captured by a bystander with a phone) become angry and indignant when is suggested that changes is warranted and all too often they decide en masse decide to quit or they silent protest by refusing to get outta their vehicles and actual do their jobs... is easier to ride out a a few years 'til they hit their 20. even before floyd, what happened in baltimore post freddie gray (2015) is illustrative o' obstacles facing a department attempting to bring change to law enforcement. 'course if you live somewhere which is seeing crime rates rise, being told things will get better, maybe better, in a couple years after they get worse is hardly reassuring news and a less than popular pitch for a politician. ny rejected progressive and principled candidates and instead chose a doofus for mayor, a tough-on-crime doofus. not a surprise and democrats nationwide need take notice. HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind am not suggesting all cops is bad. am knowing such is a popular position on this board, but am not one o' those people.

recent reads we would recommend: At a shameful detention camp, an improbable football team Covered with Night: A Story of Murder and Indigenous Justice in Early America One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965 disappointed with the following: Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution a hard read with little payoff HA! Good Fun!

am thinking most people in the US look to what is happening in russia when protesters dare to question the special military operation and those democracy loving americans are appalled. people have even been arrested and jailed for holding up blank signs in moscow, st. petersburg and elsewhere. thank goodness the US is different than russia, eh? The Year Montana Rounded Up Citizens for Shooting Off Their Mouths "Some 200 people were arrested, and approximately 125 people went to trial, under the Montana Sedition Law, which criminalized nearly everything said or written against the American government and its conduct when it passed in February 1918. The penalties--a maximum of 10-to-20 years in prison and up to a $20,000 fine--were tough, and the pressure on “disloyal” citizens was relentless. The vast majority of people were rounded up for casual statements, off-the-cuff remarks deemed pro-German or anti-American. Citizens turned against one another, joining “patriotic” organizations like the Montana Loyalty League with its stated goal of keeping the Treasure State from “going over body and soul to the Kaiser.”" and am thinking nobody would be surprised by a few o' the more racist state laws passed democratic in states after the civil war. Black Codes In South Carolina, a law prohibited Black people from holding any occupation other than farmer or servant unless they paid an annual tax of $10 to $100. This provision hit free Black people already living in Charleston and former slave artisans especially hard. In both states, Black people were given heavy penalties for vagrancy, including forced plantation labor in some cases. ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920) California led the way for fifteen states to pass legislation preventing “aliens ineligible to citizenship” from owning land. Although occasionally used against other Asians, these laws were directly aimed at Japanese immigrants, who were perceived as gaining undue economic power through agricultural holdings. Legislation using the words “Asian” or “Japanese” would clearly be unconstitutional, hence the circumlocution. Violators would have their property revert to control by the state. But at least some Japanese manage to evade the law, and the legislature moved in 1920 to strengthen its provisions as well as prohibit the practice of immigrant Japanese (as guardians) placing land in the legal hands of their citizen children. ... we could go on and on and on. am gonna hazard the core disconnect here in the US, and in much o' the west, is we are taught democracy is the source o' freedom and rights. is sooooooo not true. the majority is all too quick to blame their problems on them and they. is always a few skeevy politicians trying to take advantage o' the greed and pettiness which is common in the human animal and our democratic republic makes it all too easy for those politicians to successful promote laws which ensure they have less rights. any government, by its very nature, places limits on liberty. needs be a monopoly on violence for a government to even exist-- day 1 and already liberties is being limited. democracy makes it so the majority chooses whose rights are most important and which o' those rights deserve protection. you don't need much imagination to guess what happens when the me and mine majority decides who should benefit from the efforts o' a working democratic republic, eh? the bill of rights, and many o' the amendments, represent those rights Americans has set aside as too important to leave to democracy. the Constitution, sans the amendments, grants almost no rights to Americans, but instead focuses on the structure o' a democratic republic the founders believed would avoid the tyranny of the majority which plagued athenian democracy. J. alito, whose questionable history approach is already being challenged by many, has us look at the history and traditions o' the US at the time a law were passed to decide which rights is fundamental but not enumerated in the Constitution. is a questionable approach for many reasons, but as we stated earlier, roe and other privacy rights is linked to a penumbra/gestalt o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. is understandable why a considerable % o' the nation's women, ethnic & religious minorities and political/social undesirables is unnerved by the realization substantive due process rights need by reduced in a crucible based on values o' the majority o' Americans in 1791 and 1868. for democracy to work as envisioned by the founders, you need an informed and educated electorate. the war on crt and wokeism in classrooms across the country, along with the internet and cable tv networks making it possible for americans to only hear the news with which they already agree, makes an educated and informed electorate less likely than were possible ten or twenty years past. so we change the rules regarding substantive due process and count on the people in louisiana, florida and texas to look to the better angels of their nature? can't guess what could go wrong for people who were not favored by tradition and history in 1791 and 1868. as already stated, overturning roe as J. alito is trying to do ain't gonna result in an overnight apocalypse for american women, but am thinking most o' the freedom loving americans who is constant railing 'bout their rights is in for rude awakenings... though as one might expect, minorities and women is gonna be taking the brunt o' the pain. no surprise there, eh? is a continuation o' the history and tradition o' democracy at work in the US. HA! Good Fun!

vegas has excellent restaurant options, arguable challenging new york, san francisco, chicago and new orleans for the title o' best US food city. we don't gamble and most vegas shows ain't our thing, but am admitting vegas is worth the trip for culinary adventurers. HA! Good Fun! ps our actual favorite destination for dining experiences in the western hemisphere is mexico city which also turns out to be one o' the cheaper options for high-end dining. typical we go to ixtapa when we visit mexico, but from there we inevitable make the trip to mexico city (a full day's drive) to indulge our gastronomical needs.

Esper: Stephen Miller called for a "quarter-million troops" to respond to migrant caravan given the pause before "ridiculous," am betting a different and more colorful adjective were used to describe miller's plan. speaking o' speculation, Ted Cruz Speculates Clerk of Sonia Sotomayor 'Most Likely' Leaked Roe Draft so, w/o proof, a US senator public suggests a clerk o' J. Sotomayor were responsible for the leaked opinion? HA! Good Fun!

am embarrassed to reveal the joke were ruined 'cause we were aware hellman's as a commercial product got its start in 1913 ny. guy named hellman were a german (austrian?) immigrant working in a manhattan deli when he came up with his mayo recipe/formula. the hellamans brand didn't make it to the uk until the 1960s btw, though we don't know the exact year. what kinda person remembers the origins o' a popular US mayo brand? ... we can also tell you why hellman's is sold as best foods brand west o' the rockies. *sigh* HA! Good Fun!

hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights. converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc. that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted. such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize? as should be obvious by now, Gromnir is not a fan o' roe from a legal pov. there has never been a decent consensus Court explanation as to what were the basis for a right to abortion. weak. however, the manner in which J. alito dismantles the abortion protection in his draft opinion is placing numerous other implied fundamental rights w/i reach o' termination with naught but a suspect history and tradition analysis offering any kinda valid argument for their maintenance. abortion is getting all the attention at the moment, but all those misinformed folks who did rage for the past few years 'cause o' how the government, those jack-booted thugs, were trampling on their god given Constitutional rights by requiring patrons to don masks in the local piggly wiggly should be livid with the roe opinion by alito. most o' the rights the maga crowd believes they is entitled to don't actual exist, but the roe opinion puts at risk a whole lotta rights they do in fact enjoy 'cause the namby-pamby activist Justices o' the past created substantive due process rights and implied rights which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. is a whole lotta stoopid and misinformation guiding the current debate. any bets on whether fox news corrects the misapprehensions o' their audience? HA! Good Fun!

is some curious conflating o' the religious right and libertarians going on here which is odd. regardless, none o' these groups is monolithic or homogenized, although evangelicals is arguable one o' the more polarized/radicalized voting groups, which is precise why the gop caters to their demands. is perhaps unfair to him, but guard dog is a useful example o' the libertarian who embraces alt-right radio talking points and conspiracies, but am doubting many is gonna suggest his opinions is motivated by a fear o' brown people. am also doubtful gd sees himself as a poster child for the religious right values. the libertarian ideology is most often linked to a distrust o' government, which is a quality shared by the minorities some is suggesting is the real target o' libertarian angst. the above linked politico piece which seeks to describe the origins o' the religious right does indeed mention those catholics who were opposed to roe, but curious dismisses their significance, as if those folks disappeared. catholics voted democrat overwhelming until roe and even post roe it took a few years to see serious changes in voting patterns in part 'cause it were only catholic women who appeared invested in the abortion issue. took a while for catholic men to take their wives, sisters and daughters serious? please note, as o' 2014, same year as the politico article linked, catholic represented 20.8% o' the US population, and evangelical christians accounted for 25.4%. the thing is ~50% o' catholics were able to look past abortion and vote for biden instead o' trump. better than 75% o' evangelicals voted for trump in 2020... though that were actual down from better than 80% in 2016. we also posted a link to a rolling stone article in this thread, a few times, which sought to explain evangelical support o' trump. is ez to forget how evangelicals were part o' the dissatisfied working class americans who helped get obama elected 'cause while they likely were harboring the kinda mundane bigotry so prevalent 'mongst americans, those folks were even more angry with those they perceived as traditional politicians. the thing which kinda shocked us 'bout the rolling stone piece were that the evangelicals mighta' been in denial regarding their racial biases, but they were quite vocal and forceful 'bout the affront they took at the rainbow flag and what it stood for. obama were acceptable until he started defending lgbt... well that and 'cause like minorities, working class americans were facing the pain o' protracted income disparity issues which had been growing unchecked through multiple Presidential administrations (republican and democrat) since the clinton years. is too ez to look at a group as monolithic. is a mistake. HA! Good Fun!

The Politics of Overturning Roe Are Bad for Republicans "On Tuesday, at a Republican press conference, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked three times about the big story of the week: A draft Supreme Court opinion, leaked to Politico, that exposed the Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. McConnell was furious about the leak. But each time reporters asked him to talk about abortion, he refused to engage. "Morally, this reticence seems bizarre. For half a century, Republicans have campaigned on promises to expunge Roe. They said millions of unborn lives were at stake. Now victory is at hand, but McConnell won’t talk about it. Why not? "The answer is simple: He knows this issue is bad for his party. Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority." HA! Good Fun!

if folks is seeing a new trend, they ain't been paying attention to our shadow docket posts. is also multiple affirmative action and admission policy cases related to public education which if you do searches you will realize has already been decided or is current up for review. bakke, gratz v. bollinger, and grutter v. bollinger would appear to be the next education precedents on this Courts' chopping bloc. keep in mind, bakke were a decision which rejected racial quotas specific, but it upheld affirmative action policies in general. were a plurality much like roe which makes it ripe for overturn. HA! Good Fun! ps is a short-term memory loss thing happening as well regarding The Court. please recall the two nightmares mentioned most frequent during the ACB hearings were the prospect o' roe being overturned but also (and more significant) the ACA being declared unconstitutional. is possible the ACA might be killed in the future, but the fear were an immediate disillusion ACA as the result o' a case which were projected to soon be before SCOTUS. and for those who so quick forgot... The Health 202: ACB helped save the ACA after all these issues is often not as portrayed. but regardless, is worth doing a search o' shadow docket shenanigans by this Court via your favorite search engine. the so-called conservatives has been kneecapping fundamental rights cases for a while now and such efforts has been garnering shocking little press 'cause few in the media understand the significance o' the shadow docket.

HA! Good Fun!

two quick points. first, our problem with the J. alito opinion is the history & tradition approach taken. a genuine textualist approach considers history but only in the context o' revealing the plain meaning o' the words o' legislation or laws as written at the time they were authored. a history and tradition analysis to legitimize conservative favoured substantive due process claims is therefore suspect from a textualist pov. which history means more anyways? previous to roe, there were indeed considerable history which would show a tendency to criminalize abortion. however, the s'posed justification for roe itself were the changing values o' american society as a whole which had shifted in favour o' a recognition o' a woman's right to self determination in matters o' medical treatments. since roe, the weight o' traditions has clear shifted even further such that today most polls show support o' some kinda abortion protection anywhere between seventy and eighty percent in favour o' maintaining roe. we now got fifty years o' tradition and history which appear to show a trend towards support o' a right to abortion. J. Gorsuch authored the recent obergefell v. hodges case... which we criticized. J. Gorsuch in obergefell observed the shift in societal values and opinions regarding same-sex marriage as validation for the granting o' a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. we observed how such an analysis were far too touchy-feely for The Court and that such an analysis were in fact the kinda policy choice Congress were meant to indulge. furthermore, support for same-sex marriage, even post obergefell, is 'ccording to most polls less pronounced than is the support for a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. regardless, the so-not-a-textualist-approach taken by J. Gorsuch in obergefell were criticized by J. alito as a violation o' textualist principles. says alito, “The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. it sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current value of society.” 'course the alito draft opinion similar undermines a textualist approach but instead replaces modern societal values with history and tradition as the guide. as such alito's criticism o' obergefell, while valid, is more than a little hypocritical. whatever. obergefell and the alito draft opinion, along with the first amendment cross case we mentioned earlier, reveal a new trend in the Court away from textualism as J. Scalia woulda' described in favour o' a highly subjective interpretations o' law. the so-called conservatives o' The Court has since the death o' J. Scalia become reactionary activists, a most disturbing trend as judicial restraint were previous considered the purview o' the conservatives. even if you didn't like conservative values, a so-called conservative Justice were less dangerous 'cause he/she would be less likely to make law as 'posed to limiting their efforts to interpretation o' law. unfortunate, if the alito draft opinion stands as has been leaked, then it might be time to give textualism a viking funeral. second, individuals receiving Presidential nomination to SCOTUS observing roe is settled law is meaningless. plessy v. ferguson were indeed settled law... up until brown v. board of education. is many examples o' The Court overturning precedent and in each case the Justices is rejecting established jurisprudence in favour o' a new rule o' law. am having no idea what were stated by SCOTUS nominees in private meetings with Congressmen, but am unable to recall any hearings in which Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or ACB stated unequivocal that they saw roe precedent as inviolable. and speaking o' precedent, am gonna observe how one year removed from the leak o' the alito draft, we observed how justice thomas were telegraphing his willingness to overturn roe, and alito had done similar laying o' groundwork if a bit less overt. ... well, not so quick points after all, but what were you expecting from a Gromnir response, eh? HA! Good Fun!

'course drug dealers are all metric as well. however, speaking o' obstinance, english drug dealers use the imperial system o' measurements. HA! Good Fun!

we were assigned near nightly homework for every class (save gym and the like) which were then graded. homework represented a not insignificant % o' our total grade for a course but considerable less than tests. however, keep in mind our high school years occurred in the 80s. @Hurlsnot would have a better idea o' how things work nowadays. HA! Good Fun!

is curious as the tweet appears designed to alienate a women voters, which don't sound like a particular effective approach for a politician, even in florida. if we had to guess at a strategy, we would assume this were part o' the curious new, own the libs bit which trump and his ilk popularized. no matter how stoopid a statement is, if the libs is "triggered" is somehow a win for the gop. ultimate payoff is managing an angry response from a "squad" member? am obvious not the target audience, so it makes it difficult to guess what is the payoff. HA! Good Fun!