What does that say about the other party?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
What does that say about the other party?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
No idea. I do know what it says about humanity though.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
No idea. I do know what it says about humanity though.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Have you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Have you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"
unofan
Well-known member
Of course you think he was. Now, as burd asked, care to explain what you mean by "strictly based on the legality"?
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
That nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public?
But you and Gorsuch are right. We need to convince people, not ramrod them, and we're paying the price now of not being capable of countering the GOP's mountain of bullsh-t.
Make no mistake, this is our fault. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and we have done nothing to break the stranglehold the GOP media misinformation machine has over the middle half of the nation.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
That nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public?
But you and Gorsuch are right. We need to convince people, not ramrod them, and we're paying the price now of not being capable of countering the GOP's mountain of bullsh-t.
Make no mistake, this is our fault. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and we have done nothing to break the stranglehold the GOP media misinformation machine has over the middle half of the nation.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
He likes the outcome. That's the only "merit" the GOP cares about. Drew has already said on another topic "the end justifies the means." That's all you need to know about the current mentality of the right. "F-ck everything else; I'm gonna get my way!"
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
He likes the outcome. That's the only "merit" the GOP cares about. Drew has already said on another topic "the end justifies the means." That's all you need to know about the current mentality of the right. "F-ck everything else; I'm gonna get my way!"
I have not, it's over 100 pages and abortion isn't something I have a ton of interest in.
The Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does. Does this law fall create a conflict with restricting abortion? You could make that argument based on some clinics closing, but it is flimsy at best.
Except I'm pro-choice and don't have strong feelings either way.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Nope. This was transparently a law designed to obstruct women from exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The Texas legislature has no right to do so.
Try to expand your horizons a little beyond RedState and Townhall. You might learn something.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Nope. This was transparently a law designed to obstruct women from exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The Texas legislature has no right to do so.
Try to expand your horizons a little beyond RedState and Townhall. You might learn something.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If you have no time to read I have no time to explain it to me. Suffice to say the poor were trampled on in that ruling in a big way.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If you have no time to read I have no time to explain it to me. Suffice to say the poor were trampled on in that ruling in a big way.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Then it's a bit ironic that you are parroting a rightwing narrative so flimsy even NRO has admitted it's bogus.
But if you are pro-choice, you should have learned this:
tl; dr: If you believe in a right then fight the people who are obstructing it. It's really that simple.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Then it's a bit ironic that you are parroting a rightwing narrative so flimsy even NRO has admitted it's bogus.
But if you are pro-choice, you should have learned this:
tl; dr: If you believe in a right then fight the people who are obstructing it. It's really that simple.
unofan
Well-known member
Do you understand the concept of a pretext? As in the legislature puts forth a fake reason to try to get their real agenda through the courts? Because that was as blatant an attempt as there ever was.
Texas said it was for women's health, then (among other bullshiat answers) told people on the New Mexico border they could go across the state line to get an abortion over there, even though New Mexico did not have the new standards and it would have been 'unsafe' under Texas' own guidance.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Well, not really since Kennedy sided with the liberals and struck down an abortion restriction for the first time ever. But it was closer than it should've been, because only morons couldn't have read between the lines on that one.
I don't read either of those.
I would ask you this then. Do state legislatures have the right to pass gun control legislation? A lot of the laws proposed and passed have nothing to do with public safety. There are hardly any people killed with 'assault rifles.' Wouldn't a bad on those run afoul of the constitution using your logic?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Courts are generally supposed to be conservative, in the lowercase "c" sense, no? We want existing laws to be upheld consistently across all forums and venues. That is what "the rule of law" is all about. If judges are willy-nilly going to replace logical reasoning with impulsive emoting, that would be a step backward, no?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Courts are generally supposed to be conservative, in the lowercase "c" sense, no? We want existing laws to be upheld consistently across all forums and venues. That is what "the rule of law" is all about. If judges are willy-nilly going to replace logical reasoning with impulsive emoting, that would be a step backward, no?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
No, because you can still own guns.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
No, because you can still own guns.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Good. I go to them every few months to see if they've gotten any smarter, or at least more honest.
They haven't.
I think that is a solid comparison, and I will amend my statement that suggests choice is any more an absolute right than say gun ownership.
The two instances do differ, however. On abortion, the rulings in Roe and Casey affirm the right specifically. On personal gun ownership, this had not been the case until the Court created a right out of nothing in Heller. Prior to that, in the history of the Court there were only broad rulings tied to the Militia clause which the NRA agenda ignores. The Casey decision tree is long and rooted in the general underlying privacy without which no other right exists. The Heller decision tree doesn't exist. It sprung fully formed from the head of Scalia-Zeus.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Good. I go to them every few months to see if they've gotten any smarter, or at least more honest.
They haven't.
I think that is a solid comparison, and I will amend my statement that suggests choice is any more an absolute right than say gun ownership.
The two instances do differ, however. On abortion, the rulings in Roe and Casey affirm the right specifically. On personal gun ownership, this had not been the case until the Court created a right out of nothing in Heller. Prior to that, in the history of the Court there were only broad rulings tied to the Militia clause which the NRA agenda ignores. The Casey decision tree is long and rooted in the general underlying privacy without which no other right exists. The Heller decision tree doesn't exist. It sprung fully formed from the head of Scalia-Zeus.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
it's been said that they got the right "answer" but failed abysmally in (a) the actual "reasoning" (even supporters of R v W think that the opinion was not well-thought out nor well-written), and (b) they short-circuited the political process that would have put an end to the debates once and for all.
SCOTUS did not really "legalize" gay marriage, they merely noted that most states had already done so and decided to make it uniform across the US. The political process drove the acceptance of gay marriage, and SCOTUS was merely playing catch-up.
For abortion, the political process would eventually have resulted in a consensus that early-term terminations were fine, late-term terminations were not, and mid-term terminations were complicated that involved case-by-case decisions. But we would not be arguing about it any more because it would have been decided by the People through their legislatures. By depriving everyone of a chance to debate and vote, SCOTUS did not "solve" the issue at all; while if they had merely said "abortion wasn't something the Founders contemplated, there is no clear guidance one way or the other, so legislatures better get with it to admit the obvious" we'd be spared four decades of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
it's been said that they got the right "answer" but failed abysmally in (a) the actual "reasoning" (even supporters of R v W think that the opinion was not well-thought out nor well-written), and (b) they short-circuited the political process that would have put an end to the debates once and for all.
SCOTUS did not really "legalize" gay marriage, they merely noted that most states had already done so and decided to make it uniform across the US. The political process drove the acceptance of gay marriage, and SCOTUS was merely playing catch-up.
For abortion, the political process would eventually have resulted in a consensus that early-term terminations were fine, late-term terminations were not, and mid-term terminations were complicated that involved case-by-case decisions. But we would not be arguing about it any more because it would have been decided by the People through their legislatures. By depriving everyone of a chance to debate and vote, SCOTUS did not "solve" the issue at all; while if they had merely said "abortion wasn't something the Founders contemplated, there is no clear guidance one way or the other, so legislatures better get with it to admit the obvious" we'd be spared four decades of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
There some truth to this (which I find surprising). Roe was badly reasoned -- the right should never have been privacy between doctor and patient, but 14th amendment equal protection for the woman. Liberal scholars have agreed on this practically since the ink was still wet on the decision.
Certainly though we need to acknowledge that there are cases in which what's right is right, whatever the majority thinks. Brown was handed down despite deep and bitter social resistance, and in fact we can see that the racism behind that resistance lives on even 60 years later.
Was Roe that kind of decision? I would think the guarantee of a fundamental right to more than half of the citizens of the country is. Certainly Roe was a political godsend for the right, particularly the far right which was able to infect mainstream Republican politics using "pro-life" as their injection mechanism. So for all practical and pragmatic political purposes Roe was a disaster for the country generally and for the Republican party specifically.
But the protection of the rights of our citizens is more important than politics.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
There some truth to this (which I find surprising). Roe was badly reasoned -- the right should never have been privacy between doctor and patient, but 14th amendment equal protection for the woman. Liberal scholars have agreed on this practically since the ink was still wet on the decision.
Certainly though we need to acknowledge that there are cases in which what's right is right, whatever the majority thinks. Brown was handed down despite deep and bitter social resistance, and in fact we can see that the racism behind that resistance lives on even 60 years later.
Was Roe that kind of decision? I would think the guarantee of a fundamental right to more than half of the citizens of the country is. Certainly Roe was a political godsend for the right, particularly the far right which was able to infect mainstream Republican politics using "pro-life" as their injection mechanism. So for all practical and pragmatic political purposes Roe was a disaster for the country generally and for the Republican party specifically.
But the protection of the rights of our citizens is more important than politics.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If Minnesota implemented a billion percent tax on guns, would you have a problem with that? What if the Feds put a million dollar application fee for every gun?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If Minnesota implemented a billion percent tax on guns, would you have a problem with that? What if the Feds put a million dollar application fee for every gun?
- Status