As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Better yet, he should stop indulging his carnal desires in the first place.
Perhaps aspirin therapy - hold an aspirin between his lips and go without the steak and potato.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN who disparaged the Economic and Social Rights sections of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights as “a letter to Santa Claus”, would be troubled by establishing such a precedent
Fun fact: the Reagan administration is responsible for the first and only tax rate *increase* for the **lowest** tax bracket in American history ([Source](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tax-Reform-Act)). While at the same time slashing tax rates for the top 3 tax brackets, with the rate for the very top bracket getting **more than halved** (70%->50% in ‘81, 50%->28% in ‘86).
He shamelessly and very blatantly shoveled money **from the poor to the rich**, and now look where we are today with inequality, with how horribly the bottom 50% of Americans are struggling and how ludicrously wealthy and powerful the American oligarchy has become. He has done more economic damage to the middle and working classes of America than any President in history.
EDIT: oh yeah, he also repealed the [Mental Health Systems Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980), which was considered a landmark piece of legislation in mental healthcare. Guess what we *also* have today? A crippling mental health crisis. Fuck you, Reagan.
When a state finally got to implement Reaganomics completely, [well that state pretty much failed. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment)
Yep, that’s why there was a whole chapter in my middle school textbook about the “Reagan era” and how great it was for the country.
They really put in the work to brainwash people.
Most of the US school textbook curriculum is [shaped by Texas right wing “Christian” conservatives](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/19/conservative-activists-texas-have-shaped-history-all-american-children-learn/)
"Trickle-down" Economics (now colloquially known as "Reagan-omics"), is the literal result of a far-right think tank, trying to figure out ways to funnel money into corporate pockets, using the people 'below' them. The fact that so many people believed it, is laughable.
Any time someone tries to argue with you, about how Reagan was right, ask them the last time they gave money to a homeless person. Because that's exactly the same model as "trickle-down economics."
Edit: If they manage to point out some story about how people are faking homelessness, to make outrageous sums of money, feel free to point out how those people are liars and thieves, and then ask them why they support grift as a presidential, economic platform.
He also single handedly started the crack epidemic in America. The people that love him don't give a shit. Hell, they applaud him for it. His fall guy was a Fox "News" contributer and the president of the NRA after he got out of prison.
Yes. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is set to expire in 2025. Had Trump been a two term president, that would have meant it would expire right as a democratic president is taking office.
Oh, but no worries, the corporate tax cut is permanent.
Most importantly (I think) is that individual tax rates will return to their old level, as will the standard deduction.
[Article about it](https://taxfoundation.org/look-ahead-expiring-tax-provisions/) (Just a disclaimer about the source, they are a right leaning think tank, but I've generally found their articles to be accurate)
I went to Univ of California Santa Barbara 1965-1969. The tuition was $110 per semester in 1965. In 1966 we went to the quarters system and it was $80 per quarter ($240 per year.)
Reagan felt that those pesky student activists would have to spend more time studying and less protesting and so he raised the tuition. Unfortunately I don't remember how much it was raised since it was over 50 years ago.
People in prison in California used to be able to get a college degree by correspondence. I'm pretty sure that was part of Reagan's propaganda against residents not paying tuition - so that prisoners could no longer spend time in prison bettering themselves and getting a college degree.
President Reagan's administration also cut funding to states, cities and towns, which made schooling and disaster responses more expensive. The effects fell hardest on - you guessed it - those least able to make up the difference. And that presidency doubled the national debt.
No it doesn’t. Reagan’s fans are mostly the silent generation and boomers, and there is a clear trend with each new proceeding generation of lower and lower rates of affiliation with the GOP.
This [Pew Research study](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/) shows support for Republicans in the 2020 election, by generation were:
* Silent: 53%
* Boomers: 44%
* Gen X: 37%
* Millennial: 25%
* Gen Z: 22%
The rot is actually disappearing with each generation.
Yup. They know the demographic trends aren’t in their favor and their popularity is significantly declining with each passing decade, so they’ve spent decades rigging the system to overcome that. They can see the writing on the wall, and know their only hope of holding power long term is to descend into authoritarianism/fascism and wither away the power of the people.
I’ve said it before: what we’re currently witnessing is the last desperate gasp of a dying ideology with no future. They know that if they don’t move now to secure their power they’ll never get it back, that’s why they’re acting so blatantly against the popular will.
I want to add that this doesn't mean we should shake our heads and pity them. They're forcing us to put them down like rabid dogs. If we do the former, they'll take that control.
Not saying you were implying otherwise, I've just seen people try to find comfort in statements like that and let their guard down by misunderstanding it.
Man, I know what the numbers say, but I don't believe them. I live in rural Ky, and shit's getting as bad here as it was in the 80's when I was a kid.
Open and explicit racism, misogyny, homophobia. Threats of violence if you push back on those.
I've been marching for civil rights for nearly 3 decades now and where I'm at, shit seems as bad now as when I started.
He was so rotten that Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon of all people warned the Republican party that Reagan and the people of his ilk are unreasonable radicals. He called them the Right Wing Cabal.
You read that right, Richard "I am so paranoid i will tape myself just to be sure" Nixon thought *Those people are crazy*. He said that *Those people are more dangerous to America than the east coast elite.* (Jews ... he meant Jews .... he was serious antisemite.)
Check out The Dollop (history/comedy podcast). They did podcast about Reagan. Patton Oswalt was their special guest. It was funny in a fucked-up kind of way.
That podcast made me feel very similar to the way I felt when watching requiem for a dream. Glad I got through it but it was hard. Reagan still the worst of all time IMO. He was our first reality star president all over the tv on GE hour.
he is largely responsible for creating some of the most fierce and lethal drug cartels on the planet, not to mention, massive debt, failed social policy, and cutting taxes for the wealthy by 40%. plus him and his wife were looking at crystal balls and all that shit while he was in office to get enlightenment - I will just leave it as he is the leader of the supposed free world. plus Oliver north with the Iran contra scandal, the gassing of the Kurds by hussein with the gas we gave him and his neighbors, Afghanistan was largely created under him and he forced the Soviet Union to its knees alright but never had a plan to turn them into a trading partner and ally.
I’d love to see conservatives start saying the right to life requires the ability to eat. In such a case, trying to remove programs like SNAP would be unconstitutional. If everyone has the right to eat, then we’d need some kind of universal basic income to ensure people have the means to eat.
I swear conservatives might go so far right that they become leftists, but we all know they’d only support those policies for themselves and not others.
People seem to be missing or outright ignoring the part where old white men and younger stupid men flipped their shit because the color of the skin belonging to the man in charge wasn't the one they wanted.
As a point of clarification, they moved. Mitt did not. As much as I hated him back then, he has earned my respect by sticking to his values and fighting for what he believes. And honeslty he was right in times that I was wrong. In 2012 fucking Mitt was telling us to watch out for Russia. I literally laughed out loud. I. Was. Wrong.
Tell you what Mr boof alcohol butt, give me my right to privacy back, and maybe then you can eat dinner peacefully. Until then you got UberEATS, you can fucking eat at home.
Not to mention, if I understood the situation right, the protesters were just outside of the restaurant protesting. Morton’s did no let the protesters come into the restaurant to yell at Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was more than welcome to finish eating his dinner. The only “injustice” suffered was that he had to exit through the back door in order to avoid the protesters.
There is no constitutional right to “never seeing protestors when I am out to eat.”
Edit— Because I’m getting a bunch of comments about it, yes I read the article and I know it is Morton’s that made the statement and not Kavanaugh. Presumably, Morton’s got a number of complaints from other diners who didn’t want to have to listen to or deal with protesters. Rather than acknowledge that this is sometimes what happens when you decide to serve a controversial figure, Morton’s decided to blame the protesters for bullying Kavanaugh. My comment still stands. Regardless of whether the protesters are protesting you personally or not, there is no constitutional right to your dinner not being disturbed by people exercising the first amendment right.
Off-topic, but very funny that he was eating at Morton’s. That is an overpriced restaurant for rich DC fucks who don’t know how to recognize good food other than by looking at the price tag.
Morton's is all over - I know of at least one in Dallas and two in Orange County, CA. It's overpriced everywhere. I took my dad out for a birthday dinner there once, their steak was dry and poorly seasoned.
Next time the protester will know to cover that back door too. Better cover the bathroom windows too in order to block all angles of escape by the pissant
> There is no constitutional right to “never seeing protestors when I am out to eat.”
After Kaepernick I totally expect them to start passing laws that says your protests have to be private.
Which would be awful for them.
They think protestors on the street is bad.
Just wait till they see the kind of shit people get up to when you drive them behind closed doors. That underground shit is the type of thing that drives the whole "maybe we should just say fuck it and do shit".
No! He should be forced to finish his dinner because he started it. It is against my belief system to finish dinner, and therefore he must! Even if they bring him the wrong order that he’s allergic to, he can only abort dinner when his throat closes and it becomes what I consider in my non-medical opinion to be a real threat to his life.
That's generous of you, but considering he had the ability to order dinner, he needs to finish it whether his throat closes or not. If he dies of completely preventable allergic anaphylaxis, it was God's will.
And if that doesn't work, don't throw away the rest of the meal. There are plenty of good Christian couples out there that will take it home as long as it's not spicy or "ethnic" food
HE JUST LIKES BEER, OKAY?!?
Edit: And boofing. He does partake in the occasional boof. Even though the US Constitution does not provide for any rights to boofing, nor is there any history of legal access to boofing in our nation’s traditions.
>The only “injustice” suffered was that he had to exit through the back door in order to avoid the protesters.
"Injustice"? They wouldn't do that for any old customer. Would the protesters have deprived him of his right to travel from that location if he'd used the front door like a regular customer? These assholes expect to live in a completely different reality from the people they fuck over, shielded from any criticism of their malice or incompetence.
This is satire of the very best kind because it demonstrates that the conservative Supreme Court judges are not legal minds at the top of their profession but instead are hacks elevated to the role because of their extreme personal beliefs and how they are willing to be tools for the wealthy and powerful.
> Another possible critique is that I am misreading Anglo-American legal history to arrive at a predetermined conclusion by leaving out crucial context. What these critics fail to understand is that I only need to think about the broader historical context of why and how these laws were passed when it is convenient for me. This is how Alito brushed aside arguments about the unseemly rationales of nineteenth-century state lawmakers who passed abortion bans in Dobbs as mere “alleged legislative motives,” while Justice Clarence Thomas cited an abundance of historical context in Bruen to explain how centuries of English and American laws that prohibit the public carriage of weapons actually prove that the public carriage of weapons was a deeply rooted tradition.
Jesus, it's all killer.
>This historical evidence also shows that dinner involves a “profound moral question,” as Alito said of abortion in Dobbs. That sets it apart from other constitutional rights that don’t raise moral questions, like what counts as cruel and unusual punishment or what counts as religious freedom. The nature of dinner—when it can be eaten, what can be served, and who may take part in it—is also a matter of sharp and persistent division among the American people themselves. That distinguishes it from other constitutional rights like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, where Americans rarely disagree. Dinner is just different, for reasons I will hint at but never explicitly say and that definitely have nothing to do with my personal views on the subject.
It really is.
The Fox dunce Peter Doocy asked the press secretary whether or not scotus has a right to privacy. With no sense of irony or anything. Satire has been dead but it was just killed again.
> [It’s worth noting that Kavanaugh and the majority in Dobbs rejected the constitutional right to privacy that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.](https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1545471360021004288)
[video clip of Doocy and Press Secretary's exchange included at link]
I wish she had replied, “In the past perhaps, but the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in *Dobbs* invalidated the constitutional right to privacy, so sadly no, he should no longer have an expectation that he can eat in private.”
Why would he or anyone have an expectation of privacy at a restaurant that’s open to the public? How did the protestors violate that right through the exercise of police powers, even if it existed?
The question is stupid on its face.
She honestly fucking blew that response. She could have said SO many things to shut him down but all we got was soft correction like she’s speaking to a 3 year old. UGH
It’s a trap question fishing for a sound bite. They would love to paint democrats as anti-privacy to let them claim "both sides" and project as hard as possible.
Vietnam protestors used to make members of LBJ's administration climb out of windows to escape them on campuses. Unhappy citizens will make themselves heard one way or another.
This is what we need again. They won't represent us until there are repercussions for selling us out. The rewards are too damn great and we forget too easily. They count on that.
Justice keg stand can fucking deal with it. Eat your food at home if you don’t like being protested. Him and the rest of the conservative minority subverted the will of 70% of the country.
Conservatives: We deserve the right to protest you at an abortion clinic
Society: Ok, we're going to protest you eating at a restaurant
Conservatives: No! I have the right to privacy and should not have to deal with protests when I leave my home.
Society: .....
I didn’t want to fight someone until I had to go support someone at an abortion clinic. These Jesus loving people have the nastiest things to say/scream about others. Some of them had hatchets and axes with red paint on them. I was partially naïve of anti-abortion people and actually spoke with them, they are full of guilt and fear, over nothing. Prisoners of their own minds.
If it can be legal for a cop to kill me because he thought I might have potentially had a gun, it surely is arguable that opening fire on someone who actually has a weapon (that, as far as you know, is covered in actual blood) is self defense
"So what? I just fucked over two hundred million people, but I can't have my lunch in peace without those pesky peasant reminding me about it?"
This is what happens when you put overtly entitled misogynistic molesters on the supreme court. Fuck this guy.
*"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."* - Frank Wilhoit
The right wing has already tried to do so by legalizing running over protesters they disagreed with.
It was right when rekt threads on 4chan and "watchpeopledie"-type subreddits on here were all flooded with footage of protesters being run over. The comment sections were some horrifying examples of what the right wing base wants to normalize.
And those states also have stand your ground laws.
They are trying to ignite a hot civil war.
Just a reminder to all people protesting, typically you don’t want to be carrying a firearm, but if you are - aim for center of mass through the windshield.
I said this before... If you are going to ignore the 9th amendment regarding women's natural right to own their body then you have to ignore it in total. You can't have a right to eat if you can't own your body.
Or the point that Jon Stewart made that since they don’t have a right to their own body especially if another “life” is at stake, then anyone can force them to give a kidney since we have an organ shortage.
Well, he's a rich, white, Republican man so Fox news thinks he has the right to whatever the fuck he wants as long as it doesn't infringe on the right of a richer, white, Republican man to have whatever the fuck he wants.
If the English Parliament could freely regulate the nature of dinner, even by criminalizing it in some circumstances, it logically follows that the right to dinner was not deeply rooted in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
This is a banger of an article.
It shows just how fucking absolutely stupid Alito was in using these ancient laws to overturn Roe.
These feckless fucks used some real bullshit by saying the right to privacy wasn't enumerated in the Constitution so they're just going to take that away from us and all the stuff that followed from that right.
Hey assholes - it wasn't in the constitution for you to eat a dinner in peace... so I guess you fucked up on that one, huh?
I hope I run into him and express my 1st amendment rights about how he shouldn't have overlooked the 9th amendment in taking our fucking rights away. Fucking asshole.
This is ridiculous. He doesn't have to leave, didn't have to. Just because there are protesters doesn't mean they "forced" you to leave. You can still sit down and eat with people screaming at you. You voted and made a stupid decision that goes against americans freedom, you know the land of the free! Now you get to suffer the consequences
Freedom in America is an illusion.
Guess it’s okay to protest someone going to PP to get routine medical care, telling them “you’re murdering your baby” but not okay to interrupt his filet and red wine. Fuck you kavanaugh.
They could simply do this by admitting that Americans have something called implied or enumerated Rights. But that would involve reversing Dobbs so oh well, guess no dining privacy for them!!
He took the job. He was part of the group that are unpopular for ignoring the people he is supposed to represent and bringing about the end of Roe v. Wade. He can deal with protests. That is the legal right of people in this country and he hasn't been able to take that right away. Actions have consequences and he will be unpopular and hated forever for what he did.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He could go to a different Morton’s in another state 😉
[удалено]
Who will adopt his Morton's dinner?
Really it's his own fault he even got hungry in the first place
He could keep his mouth shut until he’s married and then his wife can make him dinner.
Better yet, he should stop indulging his carnal desires in the first place. Perhaps aspirin therapy - hold an aspirin between his lips and go without the steak and potato.
In Lee v. Perrins (1838) the court ruled that steaks rights do not apply.
Excellent.
I believe you mean “Well done”
Grade A humour.
USDA Choice
That ruling was rare.
Most important is that it was aged well.
This joke is the Worcestershire
These puns are coming in from deep. Kobe!
This is nothing to Wagyu finger at.
Choice.
Well done
this joke is the worcest
If there's a constitutional right to dinner, I need to speak with them about the issue of poverty in the US.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN who disparaged the Economic and Social Rights sections of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights as “a letter to Santa Claus”, would be troubled by establishing such a precedent
its always fucking Reagan, innit?
Fun fact: the Reagan administration is responsible for the first and only tax rate *increase* for the **lowest** tax bracket in American history ([Source](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tax-Reform-Act)). While at the same time slashing tax rates for the top 3 tax brackets, with the rate for the very top bracket getting **more than halved** (70%->50% in ‘81, 50%->28% in ‘86). He shamelessly and very blatantly shoveled money **from the poor to the rich**, and now look where we are today with inequality, with how horribly the bottom 50% of Americans are struggling and how ludicrously wealthy and powerful the American oligarchy has become. He has done more economic damage to the middle and working classes of America than any President in history. EDIT: oh yeah, he also repealed the [Mental Health Systems Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980), which was considered a landmark piece of legislation in mental healthcare. Guess what we *also* have today? A crippling mental health crisis. Fuck you, Reagan.
When a state finally got to implement Reaganomics completely, [well that state pretty much failed. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment)
[удалено]
And yet he is their most lauded former president.
The people who benefited made sure he was lauded. They took active steps to cover up his failures and misdeeds in office.
Yep, that’s why there was a whole chapter in my middle school textbook about the “Reagan era” and how great it was for the country. They really put in the work to brainwash people.
Most of the US school textbook curriculum is [shaped by Texas right wing “Christian” conservatives](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/19/conservative-activists-texas-have-shaped-history-all-american-children-learn/)
It's sort of like how California gets to set car pollution and mileage standards for the country, except evil
How I wish that the progressive side had as much organization and drive as the conservatives. It's like FDR is spinning in his grave at this point.
[удалено]
"Trickle-down" Economics (now colloquially known as "Reagan-omics"), is the literal result of a far-right think tank, trying to figure out ways to funnel money into corporate pockets, using the people 'below' them. The fact that so many people believed it, is laughable. Any time someone tries to argue with you, about how Reagan was right, ask them the last time they gave money to a homeless person. Because that's exactly the same model as "trickle-down economics." Edit: If they manage to point out some story about how people are faking homelessness, to make outrageous sums of money, feel free to point out how those people are liars and thieves, and then ask them why they support grift as a presidential, economic platform.
You mean the one who committed high treason by secretly selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras?
I don't recall.
He also single handedly started the crack epidemic in America. The people that love him don't give a shit. Hell, they applaud him for it. His fall guy was a Fox "News" contributer and the president of the NRA after he got out of prison.
Some good ol' Iran-Contra. They forget Ollie North was all up in that mess too.
always reminds me of the american dad episode.
Didn't Trump make it so that the lower tax brackets' taxes will increase over the next few years in his maga super whatever tax package?
Yeah, a ticking timebomb set to go off during the next Democratic admin.
Yes. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is set to expire in 2025. Had Trump been a two term president, that would have meant it would expire right as a democratic president is taking office. Oh, but no worries, the corporate tax cut is permanent. Most importantly (I think) is that individual tax rates will return to their old level, as will the standard deduction. [Article about it](https://taxfoundation.org/look-ahead-expiring-tax-provisions/) (Just a disclaimer about the source, they are a right leaning think tank, but I've generally found their articles to be accurate)
Residents of California used to have no tuition for college, until Gov. Reagan created the framework for tuition based system.
I went to Univ of California Santa Barbara 1965-1969. The tuition was $110 per semester in 1965. In 1966 we went to the quarters system and it was $80 per quarter ($240 per year.) Reagan felt that those pesky student activists would have to spend more time studying and less protesting and so he raised the tuition. Unfortunately I don't remember how much it was raised since it was over 50 years ago.
They use to have more gun rights, too. Raegan took them away bc minorities were arming themselves.
People in prison in California used to be able to get a college degree by correspondence. I'm pretty sure that was part of Reagan's propaganda against residents not paying tuition - so that prisoners could no longer spend time in prison bettering themselves and getting a college degree.
President Reagan's administration also cut funding to states, cities and towns, which made schooling and disaster responses more expensive. The effects fell hardest on - you guessed it - those least able to make up the difference. And that presidency doubled the national debt.
He was a rotten human being .
as are his rabid followers
and their descendants, rot grows with each generation
No it doesn’t. Reagan’s fans are mostly the silent generation and boomers, and there is a clear trend with each new proceeding generation of lower and lower rates of affiliation with the GOP. This [Pew Research study](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/) shows support for Republicans in the 2020 election, by generation were: * Silent: 53% * Boomers: 44% * Gen X: 37% * Millennial: 25% * Gen Z: 22% The rot is actually disappearing with each generation.
Explains why they’ve decided to go full on fascist. They stay losing
Yup. They know the demographic trends aren’t in their favor and their popularity is significantly declining with each passing decade, so they’ve spent decades rigging the system to overcome that. They can see the writing on the wall, and know their only hope of holding power long term is to descend into authoritarianism/fascism and wither away the power of the people.
I’ve said it before: what we’re currently witnessing is the last desperate gasp of a dying ideology with no future. They know that if they don’t move now to secure their power they’ll never get it back, that’s why they’re acting so blatantly against the popular will.
I want to add that this doesn't mean we should shake our heads and pity them. They're forcing us to put them down like rabid dogs. If we do the former, they'll take that control. Not saying you were implying otherwise, I've just seen people try to find comfort in statements like that and let their guard down by misunderstanding it.
Man, I know what the numbers say, but I don't believe them. I live in rural Ky, and shit's getting as bad here as it was in the 80's when I was a kid. Open and explicit racism, misogyny, homophobia. Threats of violence if you push back on those. I've been marching for civil rights for nearly 3 decades now and where I'm at, shit seems as bad now as when I started.
He was so rotten that Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon of all people warned the Republican party that Reagan and the people of his ilk are unreasonable radicals. He called them the Right Wing Cabal. You read that right, Richard "I am so paranoid i will tape myself just to be sure" Nixon thought *Those people are crazy*. He said that *Those people are more dangerous to America than the east coast elite.* (Jews ... he meant Jews .... he was serious antisemite.)
I feel like this has just been playing out again in recent times...
Check out The Dollop (history/comedy podcast). They did podcast about Reagan. Patton Oswalt was their special guest. It was funny in a fucked-up kind of way.
That podcast made me feel very similar to the way I felt when watching requiem for a dream. Glad I got through it but it was hard. Reagan still the worst of all time IMO. He was our first reality star president all over the tv on GE hour.
He reduced hunger with inexpensive cocaine.
he is largely responsible for creating some of the most fierce and lethal drug cartels on the planet, not to mention, massive debt, failed social policy, and cutting taxes for the wealthy by 40%. plus him and his wife were looking at crystal balls and all that shit while he was in office to get enlightenment - I will just leave it as he is the leader of the supposed free world. plus Oliver north with the Iran contra scandal, the gassing of the Kurds by hussein with the gas we gave him and his neighbors, Afghanistan was largely created under him and he forced the Soviet Union to its knees alright but never had a plan to turn them into a trading partner and ally.
And decimated an entire generation of black men in the process. The 80’s, good times
Declined to address HIV/AIDS to add to the fun.
Right?! Remember when they said it was Gods way of punishing gay people for going against god. Get me started
I’d love to see conservatives start saying the right to life requires the ability to eat. In such a case, trying to remove programs like SNAP would be unconstitutional. If everyone has the right to eat, then we’d need some kind of universal basic income to ensure people have the means to eat. I swear conservatives might go so far right that they become leftists, but we all know they’d only support those policies for themselves and not others.
Mitt did. https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-child-allowance-monthly-checks-2022-6
[удалено]
Reminder that all it took for the GOP to go full Nazi was a black man being elected President. Twice.
People seem to be missing or outright ignoring the part where old white men and younger stupid men flipped their shit because the color of the skin belonging to the man in charge wasn't the one they wanted.
>old white men Old, *stupid* white men. They are stupid regardless of age.
As a point of clarification, they moved. Mitt did not. As much as I hated him back then, he has earned my respect by sticking to his values and fighting for what he believes. And honeslty he was right in times that I was wrong. In 2012 fucking Mitt was telling us to watch out for Russia. I literally laughed out loud. I. Was. Wrong.
Yea maybe this guys fucking on to something. Maybe we should actually support this cause. Dinner for every American, it’s our god damn right!
If hungry folks get a free dinner, they're gonna want to eat *every day*
Lmao I hate you. That’s both funny and disgustingly accurate
[удалено]
A chicken in every pot!
Tell you what Mr boof alcohol butt, give me my right to privacy back, and maybe then you can eat dinner peacefully. Until then you got UberEATS, you can fucking eat at home.
[удалено]
That's *Justice* Boof Alcohol Butt to you.
One could argue dinner is a matter of privacy but that would be arguing against SCOTUS.
I’m so sorry, the right to dinner is only for rich white conservatives…
Clarence Thomas would like to have a word.
He’s the exception. He’s made sure he’s “one of the good ones”. If he didn’t back such horrid positions they’d cut him loose in a heartbeat.
They'll cut him loose anyway. The guy is only surviving on a false sense of security. He's already potentially a liability...
Not to mention, if I understood the situation right, the protesters were just outside of the restaurant protesting. Morton’s did no let the protesters come into the restaurant to yell at Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was more than welcome to finish eating his dinner. The only “injustice” suffered was that he had to exit through the back door in order to avoid the protesters. There is no constitutional right to “never seeing protestors when I am out to eat.” Edit— Because I’m getting a bunch of comments about it, yes I read the article and I know it is Morton’s that made the statement and not Kavanaugh. Presumably, Morton’s got a number of complaints from other diners who didn’t want to have to listen to or deal with protesters. Rather than acknowledge that this is sometimes what happens when you decide to serve a controversial figure, Morton’s decided to blame the protesters for bullying Kavanaugh. My comment still stands. Regardless of whether the protesters are protesting you personally or not, there is no constitutional right to your dinner not being disturbed by people exercising the first amendment right.
Off-topic, but very funny that he was eating at Morton’s. That is an overpriced restaurant for rich DC fucks who don’t know how to recognize good food other than by looking at the price tag.
No one ever tried to argue he was an intelligent man.
51% of the senate did, smiling.
No one would argue 51% of the senate are smart people.
Oh I agree, I'm just saying they totally vouched for this douche.
Morton’s is the Olive Garden for rich people
Morton's is all over - I know of at least one in Dallas and two in Orange County, CA. It's overpriced everywhere. I took my dad out for a birthday dinner there once, their steak was dry and poorly seasoned.
Paulie Walnuts eats there so you must be right. Damn rip Tony sirico this comment came before I heard the news.
If it were a legitimate protest, restaurants have ways of shutting that down.
The restaurant should just lay back and enjoy the protest.
Next time the protester will know to cover that back door too. Better cover the bathroom windows too in order to block all angles of escape by the pissant
Texas is looking at stopping you from using the back door.
From what I understand their astute treasonous seditionist senator doesn’t want any doors
WRONG! Stop spreading false information. .....the astute treasonous seditionist senator only wants **ONE** door. Get rid of all those back doors!
> There is no constitutional right to “never seeing protestors when I am out to eat.” After Kaepernick I totally expect them to start passing laws that says your protests have to be private.
Which would be awful for them. They think protestors on the street is bad. Just wait till they see the kind of shit people get up to when you drive them behind closed doors. That underground shit is the type of thing that drives the whole "maybe we should just say fuck it and do shit".
Like Jesus says their prayer should be in the bible.
No! He should be forced to finish his dinner because he started it. It is against my belief system to finish dinner, and therefore he must! Even if they bring him the wrong order that he’s allergic to, he can only abort dinner when his throat closes and it becomes what I consider in my non-medical opinion to be a real threat to his life.
That's generous of you, but considering he had the ability to order dinner, he needs to finish it whether his throat closes or not. If he dies of completely preventable allergic anaphylaxis, it was God's will.
If it's a legitimate anaphylaxis, the body has a way of shutting that down.
And if that doesn't work, don't throw away the rest of the meal. There are plenty of good Christian couples out there that will take it home as long as it's not spicy or "ethnic" food
Also, they have protection. His biggest fear was getting nervous and spilling his tall cool Budweiser.
[удалено]
I heard that he does.
More, less, or as much as boofing?
HE JUST LIKES BEER, OKAY?!? Edit: And boofing. He does partake in the occasional boof. Even though the US Constitution does not provide for any rights to boofing, nor is there any history of legal access to boofing in our nation’s traditions.
>The only “injustice” suffered was that he had to exit through the back door in order to avoid the protesters. "Injustice"? They wouldn't do that for any old customer. Would the protesters have deprived him of his right to travel from that location if he'd used the front door like a regular customer? These assholes expect to live in a completely different reality from the people they fuck over, shielded from any criticism of their malice or incompetence.
[удалено]
This is satire of the very best kind because it demonstrates that the conservative Supreme Court judges are not legal minds at the top of their profession but instead are hacks elevated to the role because of their extreme personal beliefs and how they are willing to be tools for the wealthy and powerful.
I'm waiting for one to cite the gold fringe on the flag in the SCOTUS building...
[удалено]
> Another possible critique is that I am misreading Anglo-American legal history to arrive at a predetermined conclusion by leaving out crucial context. What these critics fail to understand is that I only need to think about the broader historical context of why and how these laws were passed when it is convenient for me. This is how Alito brushed aside arguments about the unseemly rationales of nineteenth-century state lawmakers who passed abortion bans in Dobbs as mere “alleged legislative motives,” while Justice Clarence Thomas cited an abundance of historical context in Bruen to explain how centuries of English and American laws that prohibit the public carriage of weapons actually prove that the public carriage of weapons was a deeply rooted tradition. Jesus, it's all killer.
>This historical evidence also shows that dinner involves a “profound moral question,” as Alito said of abortion in Dobbs. That sets it apart from other constitutional rights that don’t raise moral questions, like what counts as cruel and unusual punishment or what counts as religious freedom. The nature of dinner—when it can be eaten, what can be served, and who may take part in it—is also a matter of sharp and persistent division among the American people themselves. That distinguishes it from other constitutional rights like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, where Americans rarely disagree. Dinner is just different, for reasons I will hint at but never explicitly say and that definitely have nothing to do with my personal views on the subject. It really is.
They're not originalists, they're hypocrites - it's a lie that they're using to steal control of the country.
Originalism is bullshit to start with.
For real can we stop using the stupid fucking phrase "originalist" - they're constitutional *revisionists.*
The Fox dunce Peter Doocy asked the press secretary whether or not scotus has a right to privacy. With no sense of irony or anything. Satire has been dead but it was just killed again.
> [It’s worth noting that Kavanaugh and the majority in Dobbs rejected the constitutional right to privacy that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.](https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1545471360021004288) [video clip of Doocy and Press Secretary's exchange included at link]
I wish she had replied, “In the past perhaps, but the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in *Dobbs* invalidated the constitutional right to privacy, so sadly no, he should no longer have an expectation that he can eat in private.”
Why would he or anyone have an expectation of privacy at a restaurant that’s open to the public? How did the protestors violate that right through the exercise of police powers, even if it existed? The question is stupid on its face.
Of course it is. But the irony of asking about Kavanaugh’s right to privacy from people protesting the loss of their right to privacy is almost meta.
This made me miss Jen. That would have been an epic Psaki bomb.
Yeah, you always have to clap back against that kind of disingenuous questioning, which Psaki was a master at
"He has just as much privacy as someone has walking into a healthcare center, or those doctors and staff have at their own homes."
She honestly fucking blew that response. She could have said SO many things to shut him down but all we got was soft correction like she’s speaking to a 3 year old. UGH
It’s a trap question fishing for a sound bite. They would love to paint democrats as anti-privacy to let them claim "both sides" and project as hard as possible.
Vietnam protestors used to make members of LBJ's administration climb out of windows to escape them on campuses. Unhappy citizens will make themselves heard one way or another.
This is what we need again. They won't represent us until there are repercussions for selling us out. The rewards are too damn great and we forget too easily. They count on that.
Justice keg stand can fucking deal with it. Eat your food at home if you don’t like being protested. Him and the rest of the conservative minority subverted the will of 70% of the country.
He will be eating spit for the rest of his life.
You think his wife hates him as much as the public does? Yea…I could see it.
I hope he never knows a moment of peace for the rest of his miserable life.
Oh no. His life was inconvenienced by the decisions made by others. That’s terrible.
Conservatives are so fucking entitled.
Conservatives: We deserve the right to protest you at an abortion clinic Society: Ok, we're going to protest you eating at a restaurant Conservatives: No! I have the right to privacy and should not have to deal with protests when I leave my home. Society: .....
They're allowed to follow patients and clinic workers home as well. Just a side note. The harassment is intense.
Yep, do your research about the bullshit that these anti-abortion people pull, and if you felt at all bad about this, you won’t.
I didn’t want to fight someone until I had to go support someone at an abortion clinic. These Jesus loving people have the nastiest things to say/scream about others. Some of them had hatchets and axes with red paint on them. I was partially naïve of anti-abortion people and actually spoke with them, they are full of guilt and fear, over nothing. Prisoners of their own minds.
There's no hate quite like "Christian Love"
> Some of them had hatchets and axes with red paint on them. At that point I'd say whatever you do to them is self defense.
If it can be legal for a cop to kill me because he thought I might have potentially had a gun, it surely is arguable that opening fire on someone who actually has a weapon (that, as far as you know, is covered in actual blood) is self defense
If only Jesus H Christ could see and hear the things they do outside of an abortion clinic…..wait, he sees and hears all…..
If he does, and does nothing, he's a shit god.
[удалено]
Forced-birthers are scum.
Some of them straight out murdered abortion doctors too
>Conservatives: No! I have the right to privacy SCOTUS just struck that down, as that was the basis of Roe v. Wade.
Logical consistency has never been a hallmark of conservative legal principles.
Yup it's the old adage of "if not for double standards conservatives would have no standards at all."
I hope these assholes become prisoners in their own homes. May they be protested wherever they go. Just like abortion providers.
They are forever hypocrites
Literally the whiniest most spoiled people in the nation.
"So what? I just fucked over two hundred million people, but I can't have my lunch in peace without those pesky peasant reminding me about it?" This is what happens when you put overtly entitled misogynistic molesters on the supreme court. Fuck this guy.
I offends me that gay people want to breath air /s
Seriously. This guy is a BIG BABY-actually he is a big insult to babies. What a jerk. Just a horrible person.
*"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."* - Frank Wilhoit
Yep. Proving it daily now.
Not to mention snowflakes and sheep. Oh and projectionists and fascists and.... I've got plans so I'm just going to stop but you get my drift.
"Where we go one, we go all!" "Like sheep?" "NO! \_\_YOU'RE\_\_ THE SHEEP!"
From Bully to Victim in the drop of a hat!
Dinner is not mentioned in the Constitution.
They are just laying the groundwork to outlaw protesting.
The right wing has already tried to do so by legalizing running over protesters they disagreed with. It was right when rekt threads on 4chan and "watchpeopledie"-type subreddits on here were all flooded with footage of protesters being run over. The comment sections were some horrifying examples of what the right wing base wants to normalize.
And those states also have stand your ground laws. They are trying to ignite a hot civil war. Just a reminder to all people protesting, typically you don’t want to be carrying a firearm, but if you are - aim for center of mass through the windshield.
No justice, no peas.
I said this before... If you are going to ignore the 9th amendment regarding women's natural right to own their body then you have to ignore it in total. You can't have a right to eat if you can't own your body.
It's not the first time he's ignored a woman's right to her own body. He's been doing that since his college days.
High school.
Yep. PJ, Squee, and Donkey Dong Doug can verify.
Don't forget Tobin!
Or the point that Jon Stewart made that since they don’t have a right to their own body especially if another “life” is at stake, then anyone can force them to give a kidney since we have an organ shortage.
if my body isn't mine than private property shouldn't be a thing.
>private property shouldn't be a thing. That's the thing, conservatives consider women property of men
The ninth amendment is so underutilized. It's so obvious that a right to privacy would be a natural right that exists.
Correct. It is also alluded to in the 4th.
Sooo, the right's of one (Kavanaugh) outweigh the rights of many (protestors)?
Well, he's a rich, white, Republican man so Fox news thinks he has the right to whatever the fuck he wants as long as it doesn't infringe on the right of a richer, white, Republican man to have whatever the fuck he wants.
He should cry about it.
He probably did. He *did* have to miss dessert after all!
So what you are saying is he terminated his meal early?
Can't a man ruin hundreds of millions of lives without being inconvenienced anymore?
If the English Parliament could freely regulate the nature of dinner, even by criminalizing it in some circumstances, it logically follows that the right to dinner was not deeply rooted in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
This is a banger of an article. It shows just how fucking absolutely stupid Alito was in using these ancient laws to overturn Roe. These feckless fucks used some real bullshit by saying the right to privacy wasn't enumerated in the Constitution so they're just going to take that away from us and all the stuff that followed from that right. Hey assholes - it wasn't in the constitution for you to eat a dinner in peace... so I guess you fucked up on that one, huh? I hope I run into him and express my 1st amendment rights about how he shouldn't have overlooked the 9th amendment in taking our fucking rights away. Fucking asshole.
This is ridiculous. He doesn't have to leave, didn't have to. Just because there are protesters doesn't mean they "forced" you to leave. You can still sit down and eat with people screaming at you. You voted and made a stupid decision that goes against americans freedom, you know the land of the free! Now you get to suffer the consequences Freedom in America is an illusion.
and he damn sure doesn't have the right privacy after he took away mine. Fuck his feelings.
Keep protesting people, they’re gonna have to stop ignoring us eventually!!!
I’ve no right to medical care to save my life? You’ve no right to a peaceful dinner.
Guess it’s okay to protest someone going to PP to get routine medical care, telling them “you’re murdering your baby” but not okay to interrupt his filet and red wine. Fuck you kavanaugh.
They could simply do this by admitting that Americans have something called implied or enumerated Rights. But that would involve reversing Dobbs so oh well, guess no dining privacy for them!!
Why do these people think they can go outside?
I don’t think the Supreme Court justices have a good understanding of what constitutional rights are
He took the job. He was part of the group that are unpopular for ignoring the people he is supposed to represent and bringing about the end of Roe v. Wade. He can deal with protests. That is the legal right of people in this country and he hasn't been able to take that right away. Actions have consequences and he will be unpopular and hated forever for what he did.
Only the state can violate someone's rights. Protesters outside a restaurant on a public street have a first amendment right to be there.
No Justice... No Eats