Women are chattel, right?  Does your cow have the right of divorce?  Why should a wife? she has no more rights than the cow, and in some states, more; after all, it is illegal to misuse an animal.

-----------------------------------

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

I have no doubt some on this side of the ocean would revert to the same dogmatic degrees if they had a chance. Did you see where Pat Boone (as one commentator noted 'didn't know he was still alive') is calling for blasphemy laws, though he may have a point when he says SNL putting on gay Jesus skit wouldn't dare make fun of Muslims. Don't know if they ever do.

Politicus USA

Pat Boone Wants Blasphemy Laws to Punish Saturday Night Live

Pat Boone, citing a "vitriol" against believers like himself, told Alan Colmes Thursday that "there should be regulations that prohibit blasphemy" after Saturday Night Live, in a movie parody poked fun at Christianity's persecution complex - you know, because it's genuinely funny that the world's largest religion thinks it's being persecuted.

Read more from Politicus USA

One brave woman is challenging the Indian Supreme Court to acknowledge she is of equal worth. What a novel idea! I hope she doesn't get hacked to death, or worse, in the meantime.

The Indian Express

Shayara Banu's fight against triple talaq

The photograph of the bride in her wedding finery, her kohl-rimmed hazel eyes peering into the camera, bears little resemblance to Shayara Banu of today. The wedding album titled 'Romantic Moments' also features photographs of a two-wheeler, household furniture, utensils and jewellery that were given away at the time of the wedding.

Read more from The Indian Express

You know that in 1970 the DAMNocRAT-controlled Senate did not give Judge Blackmun a hearing for 391 days because they opposed Richard Nixon <point of fact; so did I>.  The actual record for delaying a hearing goes back to 1846 when they kept Judge Robert C. Grier hanging for 841 days. 

Our illustrious pResident said in a 2006 appearance on ABC's This Week, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized Democrats for being unable to effectively articulate the case against then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Obama then expressed support for then-Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) efforts to filibuster Alito.

"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."

"..Chuckie Schumer said, "SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: We cannot afford to see Justice [John Paul] Stevens replaced by another [John] Roberts, or Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg by another [Samuel] Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues we shall not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."..

Now that the shoe is on the other hoof, however...there is an aghast gasp at the perfidious Republicans for doing what His Eminence and his Jester said was honorable  10 years ago...

You don't seem to have your facts straight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun#Tenure_on_the_Supreme_Court

'Blackmun was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard M. Nixon on April 14, 1970, and was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 1970, by a 94–0 vote.'

If I can trust wikipedia, Blackmun's nomination didn't take 391 days. 

'Obama then expressed support for then-Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) efforts to filibuster Alito.'

As far as Alito goes, he was confirmed.  

The Senate rejected Nixon's nominations for 341 days.  They shot down 2, outright...for the first time a Justice nomination had been refused sine 1929 (I believe).  So, for 341 days the USSC was short a Justice and the public reasons were strictly ideological.

And let us not forget Robert Bork who was vilified, his excellent legal reputation destroyed and all on purely ideological grounds. 

But thast was the work of DAMNocRAts.  And, now it is their ox which stands to ghet gored...and they are suddenly outraged...

'The Senate rejected Nixon's nominations for 341 days'

That isn't what you said the first time, unlike this current instance the Senate acted on the nominations.  

And let us not forget Robert Bork who was vilified, his excellent legal reputation destroyed and all on purely ideological grounds. 

The didn't ignore the nomination as the GOP is doing today, one may disagree with what the Democrats did, and I think it was a foolish move, but they acted unlike the current Senate who wants to get paid for doing no work.  You have made the Presidents case very well, the Senate should take up the nomination and bring it to a vote.

Oh, gee, Jerry.  Now, instead of discussing the point, which is that ideological opposition to judicial nominations has traditionally been a DAMNocRAT game, you wish to make the topic how I phrased it.

In debate that is known as a "Red Herring"... though, since it you doing it, we might rename it "A Red's Herring".

Fact is the DAMNocRATs have ALWAYS made nominations an ideological issue, at least since the 1960s.  And their personal god, FDR, tried <in vain> to increase the USSC to 11 members so that he could pack the Court.  But he lost that battle in Congress.

The real blasphemy is that people like that think they should be able to regulate how I speak, act, dress, or reproduce.

Casey (BLACKHAWK452) said:

DAMNocRATs

Why do you find it necessary to continually insult people you don't agree with?

I'm not looking to start a fight in Gunter's forum, I just find your continual name-calling rude.