[Magdalen] The Supremes

[Jay Weigel]

Weird.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Roger Stokes <roger.stokes65 at btinternet.com
> wrote:

> On 28/06/2016 00:10, Jay Weigel wrote:
>
>> I suppose Thomas and Alito were the "No" votes. I think those guys only no
>> how to vote NO.
>>
>
> Alito was actually with the majprity on this one.  Sotomayor was the other
> (partial) dissenter.
>
> Roger
>
> o
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Roger Stokes <
>> roger.stokes65 at btinternet.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2016 17:58, M J _Mike_ Logsdon wrote:
>>>
>>> The "abortion issue" seems to be the frontline issue that is inspiring
>>>>
>>>>> all kinds of other battles that chip away at previously settled laws
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> protections that have only been settled in my adult life. It is as
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> there is a subtle agenda  that these hot-button issues of the past
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> have been resolved are being attacked on a scale akin to Chinese
>>>>>>> water
>>>>>>> torture.<<<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As per the political platform specialists, it's been part of the GOP
>>>>>>
>>>>> platform to overturn RvW since the beginning.  As for any goal for
>>>> when to
>>>> begin this chipping away, I'm unaware, but certainly the advent of the
>>>> Tea
>>>> Baggers appeared to be the current best shot.
>>>>
>>>> The Supremes handed down another significant decision today.  This was
>>> that somebody who has been convicted of the reckless (as well as
>>> intentional and deliberate) dismeanour of domestic violence can be denied
>>> the right to have a gun.  It's Voisine et al v United States on the
>>> Supreme
>>> Court's website.  That was by a 6-2 majority.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>