Popular Post ml1dch Posted July 2, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 2, 2022 16 minutes ago, TheAuthority said: At last she has a reasonable grasp on reality. I would rather a hawk with some idea of reason than cranks and nutjobs. Similar to PJ O'Rouke's (RIP) logic why as a life-long Republican you vote for Clinton over Trump, in that (paraphrasing) although she's wrong about everything, at least she's wrong about everything in the world we actually live in, rather than some deranged, make-believe world you've created for yourself. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 2, 2022 Author Share Posted July 2, 2022 It feels like things are getting ready to explode over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancvillan Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 1 hour ago, maqroll said: It feels like things are getting ready to explode over here. When close to half the people don't trust the elections you have to wonder how this ever gets turned around. The point where someone can present a fact and the opposition can just say "that's not true" isn't a great platform for any kind of mutual understanding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Name Is Death Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 1 hour ago, maqroll said: It feels like things are getting ready to explode over here. Seems that way. I simply cannot understand the mentality of people who dedicate this much energy to **** with the most private and personal aspects of total strangers' lives. Quote Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should reconsider all of its "substantive due process precedents" including right to same-sex marriage and contraception in light of Roe v Wade overturning Friday (24 June). The conservative justice wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should also look at its landmark 2003 Lawrence v Texas decision which made it illegal for states to ban same-sex sexual intimacy. Paxton said during an appearance on NewsNation if he would "feel comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy" in the wake of Thomas' concurring opinion. "Yeah I mean, there's all kinds of issues here. But certainly, the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don't think there was any constitutional provision dealing with," Paxton said. "They were legislative issues, and this is one of those issues and there may be more." https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/29/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-gay-sex-sodomy-illegal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Name Is Death Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Vancvillan said: When close to half the people don't trust the elections you have to wonder how this ever gets turned around. The point where someone can present a fact and the opposition can just say "that's not true" isn't a great platform for any kind of mutual understanding. We used to cling to the illusion that truth will emerge from a "competition" or "free trade" of ideas, but that's gone the way of the dodo. You notice it on social media because, wittingly or not, not many people think competing ideas are actually worth engaging with. Just assume your opponent is arguing in bad faith, and too cowardly/disingenuous to admit to the depths of their shitbaggery, then try to catch them out on some inconsistency or other. Which is not to say that people don't contradict themselves, conceal their foul beliefs and make shit up as they go along, or that debate isn't for the most part a waste of time. But these things now being taken almost as given - in place of assuming your opponent holds at least a basically coherent philosophy and may sincerely be open to having their mind changed - is a **** disaster. Edited July 3, 2022 by His Name Is Death 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 Quite a long thread, but worryingly plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparrow1988 Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 22 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said: The best bit was where he said, "Why can't we treat human life like we'd treat alien life?" Don't they do that as it is? Find the biggest gun you can and blow the sh1t out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 10 hours ago, His Name Is Death said: Seems that way. I simply cannot understand the mentality of people who dedicate this much energy to **** with the most private and personal aspects of total strangers' lives. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/29/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-gay-sex-sodomy-illegal/ Although I don’t agree with this outcome I do tend to agree with the principle he brings up there. These issues should be resolved by democracy, not by courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 19 hours ago, LondonLax said: Although I don’t agree with this outcome I do tend to agree with the principle he brings up there. These issues should be resolved by democracy, not by courts. Won't they just strike out any attempt at legislation as "unconstitutional" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 4, 2022 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2022 20 hours ago, LondonLax said: These issues should be resolved by democracy, not by courts. Absolutely not, the judiciary are an absolutely vital arm of any democracy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post El Zen Posted July 4, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2022 13 minutes ago, bickster said: Absolutely not, the judiciary are an absolutely vital arm of any democracy. I agree with this. Although I think the SCOTUS’ partisan and de facto legislative function is a disaster, independent judiciary review and testing of legislation is absolutely a good thing. An independent judiciary protecting people from illegal and discriminatory legislation is a good thing. The problem in the US isn’t that it has a strong Supreme Court per se. The problem is how justices are politically appointed, their term limits (or lack of) and how outdated and open to partisan exploitation its constitution is. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, bickster said: Absolutely not, the judiciary are an absolutely vital arm of any democracy. I am not saying there should not be a judiciary. However I believe the way Australia and the U.K. resolved these issues through the democratic system and not having it imposed on the people by the courts gives the decisions more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Edit: Interestingly enough, Ruth Bader Ginsberg appears to also not have been a fan of the way Roe vs Wade was imposed on the various states. Here are her thoughts on it from the time around her confirmation hearing: Quote The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy. https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/ I think if the US is going to get a long lasting result on this it is going to have to do it democratically. Edited July 4, 2022 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, El Zen said: I agree with this. Although I think the SCOTUS’ partisan and de facto legislative function is a disaster, independent judiciary review and testing of legislation is absolutely a good thing. An independent judiciary protecting people from illegal and discriminatory legislation is a good thing. The problem in the US isn’t that it has a strong Supreme Court per se. The problem is how justices are politically appointed, their term limits (or lack of) and how outdated and open to partisan exploitation its constitution is. I also agree with this. Edit: An interesting thought though is whether an apolitical Supreme Court would have enacted Row vs Wade in the first place? From the sounds of it the politically neutral interpretation (if there is such a thing?) is that the constitution makes this a matter for each state to decide. Edited July 4, 2022 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: I also agree with this. Edit: Would an apolitical Supreme Court have enacted Row vs Wade in the first place? From the sounds of it the politically neutral interpretation (if there is such a thing?) is that the constitution makes this a matter for each state to decide. Well, that is obviously a matter of some debate. It is worth noting first that the SC that voted on Roe was actually majority Republican appointees. After that, it is very much down to how you red the amendments. The Roe court defined the 14th amendment as giving a fundamental right to privacy, hereunder the right to make decisions regarding your own body and health, thus clearly stating it unconstitutional to enact legislation restricting a woman’s right to abortion. The constitution obviously doesn’t say anything about the specific issue, so it is very much down to how you read the amendments. The current court has overruled the Roe court on the reading of the 14th. Not explicitly ruled on the legality of abortions, but explicitely saying the 14th doesn’t cover abortion, thus opening up for states to enact legislation banning abortions. That’s my understanding of it, anyway. Edited July 4, 2022 by El Zen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 Didn't take long did it, a 10 year old girl in ohio was raped and is 6 weeks pregnant but of course she can't legally have an abortion in her state She's having to travel to Indiana for one The country is a mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 9 minutes ago, sne said: Shit like that almost has me shouting at my phone in anger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 Does US news cover mass shootings like the weather? Just a brief overview of the daily shootings after the main news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Straggler Posted July 8, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2022 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 Owning the Libs is hard work 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts