|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think.
It's just par for the course. About half of Americans follow an ancient and outdated document that precedes the constitution by almost two millennia which also can't be updated for reasons.
|
On May 10 2022 19:02 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 18:35 Velr wrote:
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think. It's just par for the course. About half of Americans follow an ancient and outdated document that precedes the constitution by almost two millennia which also can't be updated for reasons.
To be clear, very very few follow that document in any sense of the word. It’s very American to merely claim to follow old texts.
|
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
On May 10 2022 15:55 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 08:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2022 08:04 Neneu wrote:On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:[quote] You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. With the same logic, guns would remain very legal in red states, why should the court impose its views on guns on those who don't agree with those views, regarding 2A? Time to get a well regulated militia. You and others may want to force blue states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. Or are you saying that this is only important when it comes to the stuff you/red states disagree on? By your reasoning, why even have a bill of rights if state laws are always better? He didn't say state laws are always better. He said he doesn't think there is a right to abortion enshrined in the constitution and therefore it should be left up to the states. If he thinks it is enshrined in the constitution then it's not left up the states. I don't see a problem with the logic of that, at least not to the point that we should toss out the bill of rights. Yeah the difference is that the 2A is in the Constitution and abortion is not. So when the courts encounter a gun rights issue, they are obligated to preserve the 2A right. But when courts encounter an abortion rights issue, they are obligated to leave it to the legislature. In Roe they didn't leave it to the legislature, instead they effectively modified the Constitution. Over the next 50 years, a whole bunch of people got the impression that abortion is a constitutional right, even though the "right" was purely judge-made. But in our system judges are not supposed to unilaterally create new rights.
It seems less of a stretch than a Citizen’s United to mesh it with what’s in the wording and the spirit of the Constitution. Between the privacy it was couched in and some good old constitutional secularism.
I was only very briefly a Supreme Court Justice though, and it was a while ago so take my legal interpretations with a pinch of salt.
In isolation I don’t hold this position to be especially unreasonable, but it’s not in isolation.
We’ve got a legislative branch that is de facto unfunctional due to abuse of mechanisms way beyond what they’re intended for.
We’ve thus got the pinnacle of the judicial branch taking on a mantle it really isn’t meant to have in de facto legislating on a federal level.
The same court where, for some reason one President can’t get their nominees through as it’s against spirit and precedent, but the next bloke can get three under near-identical conditions. Nominees it must be added who said Roe v Wade was settled and not in play.
Etc, and people get a tad skeptical to say the least. There’s certain parallels with the DUP over here, whose entire shtick is maintaining the Union and cultural connections with the U.K, except when it comes to bringing Norn Iron into line with said same place on gay marriage or abortion legislation.
There are those who genuinely believe in a strict constitutional line, there’s plenty for which it’s a conveniently malleable justification to do what they want, which in this instance is find a way to restrict abortion provision.
|
|
|
I don't know who lied to you about overturning roe v wade will lower tensions in the country but you shouldn't listen to people that respect you so little. Putin denazifying Ukraine has more credibility than the idea that this will do anything but polarize politics even more in this country. We're taking about decades and decades of decisions that were built on that one decision. We're talking a wide swath of issues of people crossing state borders to do acts that I guarantee will carry the death penalty in more than one state.
How many women will be put to death for this before you admit it made things worse?
|
Anyone arguing to dismantle the rights of pregnant people should have to say so to their faces. Tell them that their only role is to function as a unit of domestic production for the state, and that that's what you want. Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality.
|
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
|
On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop. You get that for free, that's an easy one.
Also, forget about the courts being amoral and apolitical. That went out the window a long time ago.
I'll repeat:
On May 10 2022 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:
Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality.
|
The question of whether the federal government or state governments should have the power to make certain laws is inherently moral when the laws at issue involve moral judgments. The idea that a SCOTUS ruling that the federal government has no power to protect reproductive rights is somehow amoral is nonsense.
|
On May 10 2022 22:06 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know who lied to you about overturning roe v wade will lower tensions in the country but you shouldn't listen to people that respect you so little. Putin denazifying Ukraine has more credibility than the idea that this will do anything but polarize politics even more in this country. We're taking about decades and decades of decisions that were built on that one decision. We're talking a wide swath of issues of people crossing state borders to do acts that I guarantee will carry the death penalty in more than one state.
How many women will be put to death for this before you admit it made things worse?
It’s interesting to see how someone sees “this will make me and people who agree with me less mad, so tensions will cool off”. I think there is some psychology on display here lol
|
On May 10 2022 22:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop. You get that for free, that's an easy one. Also, forget about the courts being amoral and apolitical. That went out the window a long time ago. I'll repeat: Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:
Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality.
1) is as I said, a difference in opinion. I'm sure the other side views that as a positive.
2) we're discussing what courts *should* do. If you want to advocate for courts being political, be my guest.
|
|
|
On May 10 2022 22:50 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:42 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop. You get that for free, that's an easy one. Also, forget about the courts being amoral and apolitical. That went out the window a long time ago. I'll repeat: On May 10 2022 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:
Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality. 1) is as I said, a difference in opinion. I'm sure the other side views that as a positive. 2) we're discussing what courts *should* do. If you want to advocate for courts being political, be my guest.
Correction, you're discussing what you think the courts should do. Everyone else is discussing what the courts are doing. I'm not advocating for anything except not destroying basic human rights, lol.
|
On May 10 2022 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:06 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know who lied to you about overturning roe v wade will lower tensions in the country but you shouldn't listen to people that respect you so little. Putin denazifying Ukraine has more credibility than the idea that this will do anything but polarize politics even more in this country. We're taking about decades and decades of decisions that were built on that one decision. We're talking a wide swath of issues of people crossing state borders to do acts that I guarantee will carry the death penalty in more than one state.
How many women will be put to death for this before you admit it made things worse? It’s interesting to see how someone sees “this will make me and people who agree with me less mad, so tensions will cool off”. I think there is some psychology on display here lol
Indeed. A mind-boggling conclusion to be honest.
|
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
On May 10 2022 22:50 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:42 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
The moral alternative is not undoing 50 years of precedent and destroying women's rights all in one swoop. You get that for free, that's an easy one. Also, forget about the courts being amoral and apolitical. That went out the window a long time ago. I'll repeat: On May 10 2022 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:
Face the consequences of your actions, instead of hiding behind arguments of legality. Face the reality of what you're doing, and own that you're in favor of that reality. 1) is as I said, a difference in opinion. I'm sure the other side views that as a positive. 2) we're discussing what courts *should* do. If you want to advocate for courts being political, be my guest.
A court by its very nature can’t be apolitical. It can be more or less capricious and partisan, but even robots adjudicating on pure legal interpretation will still be political, given the Constitution and laws are innately political documents.
The other side obviously views this as a positive, I’m not particularly interested in insulting people who hold those positions.
A national, albeit not evenly distributed minority position, mostly couched in religious views will have an in to dictate to everyone else and frame it as merely adhering to the Constitution.
As things stand in Northern Ireland, it’s not perfect but we have dual citizenship, if we fancy it and a bunch of attempts to enfranchise both identities, a pro-choice arrangement if you will.
People who are morally opposed to abortion aren’t obligated to abort as things currently stand, a flipping of the current status quo doesn’t change that, it just locks out well, everyone else.
Of course a lot is in play, be it Roe vs Wade being struck down to begin with, and if it is how individual states implement that change.
|
On May 10 2022 22:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
Its not a baby, it is a fetus. Words matter and have definitions. Children are also not adults and we have different rules for them as well.
Again - how to define the thing inside a pregnant woman's body is an opinion as well. You can disagree with those who don't view it your way but don't expect to change their minds.
|
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one.
|
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
On May 10 2022 23:24 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news apparently Josh Hawley is proposing to cap copyright protection at 56 years, applied retrospectively.
He states that he is doing this to punish Disney, but if anything good is to come of it, maybe copyright reform is one.
Punish them for what? Is copyright really in dire need of reform anyway?
Patent abuse seems an area of more genuine concern that stifles innovation and development.
|
Northern Ireland26975 Posts
On May 10 2022 23:19 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 22:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 10 2022 22:34 gobbledydook wrote:
I think there are a few issues being conflated here.
The first is the moral issue of whether abortion is a women's health issue or a babies' life issue. You can disagree with other people's sense of morality, but you are unlikely to ever change anyone's mind. Especially not if you insult them.
The second is the constitutional issue of whether the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of moral issues. Clearly it isn't ideal, but there's also the practical question of do we have a better alternative.
Its not a baby, it is a fetus. Words matter and have definitions. Children are also not adults and we have different rules for them as well. Again - how to define the thing inside a pregnant woman's body is an opinion as well. You can disagree with those who don't view it your way but don't expect to change their minds.
Sure, and I don’t try to. In a pro-choice paradigm we’re free to agree to disagree, with a pro-life one I’ve got to suck up my views and go along with theirs.
|
No, thats not an opinion. An unborn baby is a fetus. Words have meanings, calling a fetus a baby is purely done to stir moral outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
