EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3706
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26285 Posts
On July 01 2022 04:35 brian wrote: i don’t think everyone has yet to perceive the realities of the ban. mothers having to go to some other state to get their abortion before starting their chemo is brutal. worse stories are going to be popping up. it’s one thing to say ‘no exceptions for health or rape,’ it’s another thing to actually have to confront the news that their actions are actually devastating families. as predictable as it was. I somewhat doubt these people care. It’s not like these kind of common/edge cases weren’t presented already. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1951 Posts
-worked harder to not be so poor -hadn't slept around with so many men -prayed more". | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2645 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7730 Posts
On July 01 2022 04:48 plasmidghost wrote: Those mothers won't even be able to leave their states. Texas is already working to rule that if you're pregnant, you can't leave the state, and with SB8 already in effect, it's only a matter of time Isn't there something in the constitution about freedom of movement for citizens? This is some distopian shit :/ | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On July 01 2022 06:49 PoulsenB wrote: Isn't there something in the constitution about freedom of movement for citizens? This is some distopian shit :/ There absolutely is, but the sad part is, they don't care. The states are knowingly passing unconstitutional laws and the Supreme Court ruled that it's allowed when they let SB8 stand. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
1) go unbelievably nuclear by Biden pointing out the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ability to enforce their rulings 2) pack the court There’s nothing else really. The Supreme Court is essentially operating as a replacement for congress. Either Biden hands the country over (most likely) or he defends it. There’s nothing else on the table | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 01 2022 07:21 Mohdoo wrote: The two possibilities right now: 1) go unbelievably nuclear by Biden pointing out the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ability to enforce their rulings 2) pack the court There’s nothing else really. The Supreme Court is essentially operating as a replacement for congress. Either Biden hands the country over (most likely) or he defends it. There’s nothing else on the table I've been wondering if Biden should go the Andrew Jackson route at this point. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On July 01 2022 07:33 StasisField wrote: I've been wondering if Biden should go the Andrew Jackson route at this point. Can you elaborate on what you mean? | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
The Supreme Court ruled Andrew Jackson's plan to relocate the Native Americans was unconstitutional and Andrew Jackson famously told them that they had no way of enforcing their ruling and relocated them anyway. The route the federal government took to relocate the Native Americans became known as The Trail of Tears due to the horrors the Natives suffered. While this isn't exactly the best example, I still think we're reaching a point where the court's legitimacy needs to be challenged and Biden needs to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On July 01 2022 08:00 StasisField wrote: You in theory might be able to do that with stuff like EPA, but for the abortion stuff there is nothing for Biden to ignore. The problem is the states are doing stuff, and Biden can't stop them from prosecuting people having or helping with abortions.The Supreme Court ruled Andrew Jackson's plan to relocate the Native Americans was unconstitutional and Andrew Jackson famously told them that they had no way of enforcing their ruling and relocated them anyway. The route the federal government took to relocate the Native Americans became known as The Trail of Tears due to the horrors the Natives suffered. While this isn't exactly the best example, I still think we're reaching a point where the court's legitimacy needs to be challenged and Biden needs to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On July 01 2022 08:06 plasmidghost wrote: So uh, looks like we've entered the collapse of American democracy speedrun any% now. https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1542620534306922497 Dude what LOL “Court rules governor is not actually governor but instead something else” | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23665 Posts
On July 01 2022 07:21 Mohdoo wrote: The two possibilities right now: 1) go unbelievably nuclear by Biden pointing out the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ability to enforce their rulings 2) pack the court There’s nothing else really. The Supreme Court is essentially operating as a replacement for congress. Either Biden hands the country over (most likely) or he defends it. There’s nothing else on the table Unless he's going to try packing the court with an executive order, that ship's sailed. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
