The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[bcl05]

What makes MTG so breathtakingly dumb is that she is advocating choice while advocating taking away choice.  It’s hard to argue logic with people this idiotic.  

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

64% of Americans do not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, while 33% think it should. Similarly, a 2020 Kaiser Family Foundation Survey showed 27% supported overturning the ruling, and 69% opposed it. Current opinion falls along party lines, but even 34% of Republicans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[Larry]

And 6 Supreme Court Justices do not give a ****.  
 

And neither do the Republican politicians who conspired to put them there, specifically so that they could do exactly this. 

[Long n Left]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

And 6 Supreme Court Justices do not give a ****.  
 

And neither do the Republican politicians who conspired to put them there, specifically so that they could do exactly this. 

The absolute problem with there being 9 people with lifetime appointments allowed to adjudicate our lives, with no oversight.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Long n Left

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

The absolute problem with there being 9 people with lifetime appointments allowed to adjudicate our lives, with no oversight.

No, the problem is not that the SC exists. 
 

The problem is that we have been electing Senators and Presidents with a stated mandate, to put liars into that job. 

[Long n Left]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

No, the problem is not that the SC exists. 
 

The problem is that we have been electing Senators and Presidents with a stated mandate, to put liars into that job. 

Not decrying the existence of the SC, only that I believe it’s function now is obsolete. Think it should have evolved years ago to run more like circuit courts, where there is a large panel of justices across the political spectrum, from which an odd number are randomly chosen to sit on a particular case. Then, attorneys bringing cases to the SC would not know the makeup of the adjudicators, and be more careful that they are forwarding cases/legislation that has merit.

[Burgold]

McConnell is uniquely responsible for destroying the Court. He has almost singly destroyed it as an arbitrator of issues. 
 

it is now an ideological weapon where you know rulings are made before any arguments are made and rulings are made independent of precedent or merit. 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

McConnell is uniquely responsible for destroying the Court. He has almost singly destroyed it as an arbitrator of issues. 
 

it is now an ideological weapon where you know rulings are made before any arguments are made and rulings are made independent of precedent or merit. 

 

Voters destroyed the courts. 

 

Denying Garland a hearing and a vote was a naked power grab yet voters rewarded McConnell and the GOP by giving them what they wanted in electing a GOP president.  Voters got hung up over whatever grievances they had with Hillary or held their nose and voted for Trump, full knowing the inevitable consequences of Trump's election on the Supreme Court.  And more likely than not, Voters will do nothing in the long run to punish McConnell and co for the hair splitting between Garland and Coney Barrett, thus giving the green light to another naked power grab.  The outcome ultimately lies at the feet of the voters and at the end of the day abortion being banned in America will lie at the feet of the voters too when they find every excuse to vote in anti-abortionist politicians instead of voting in politicians who'll codify access to abortion.

[Burgold]

Sure, I buy that, but the court packing of McConnell began well before Garland. That was just a really obvious one. Before that, McConnell refused to hold hearings on countless judge appointments. He was so insistent on not fulfilling his duty that recess appointments became a necessity. After that, the Senate realized the only way they could ever even get a vote on a judge was to change the rules.

 

McConnell has been a terror for decades in dismantling the Court and making a mockery of the institution. He's a super villain level threat. And yes, everyone who voted for him or voted Republican has been complicit, but he is the mastermind... or he is the visible mastermind.

[Ball Security]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Voters destroyed the courts. 

 

Denying Garland a hearing and a vote was a naked power grab yet voters rewarded McConnell and the GOP by giving them what they wanted in electing a GOP president.  Voters got hung up over whatever grievances they had with Hillary or held their nose and voted for Trump, full knowing the inevitable consequences of Trump's election on the Supreme Court.  And more likely than not, Voters will do nothing in the long run to punish McConnell and co for the hair splitting between Garland and Coney Barrett, thus giving the green light to another naked power grab.  The outcome ultimately lies at the feet of the voters and at the end of the day abortion being banned in America will lie at the feet of the voters too when they find every excuse to vote in anti-abortionist politicians instead of voting in politicians who'll codify access to abortion.

I hear what you’re saying, but 2.9M more Americans voted for the Democratic candidate than the GOP candidate.

[bcl05]

 

 

The GOP position ignores basic biology and is intentionally, unnecessarily, stupidly, cruel to women.  

 

[bearrock]

35 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

I hear what you’re saying, but 2.9M more Americans voted for the Democratic candidate than the GOP candidate.

 

Yeah, obviously not quite good enough in American democracy.   But corrected for accuracy, I guess the voters who voted for GOP candidates and those who stayed home destroyed the courts.

[LadySkinsFan]

17 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 

 

The GOP position ignores basic biology and is intentionally, unnecessarily, stupidly, cruel to women.  

 

 

Republicans are going to kill women with this non-sense.

[China]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

15 hours ago, Long n Left said:

Not decrying the existence of the SC, only that I believe it’s function now is obsolete. Think it should have evolved years ago to run more like circuit courts, where there is a large panel of justices across the political spectrum, from which an odd number are randomly chosen to sit on a particular case. Then, attorneys bringing cases to the SC would not know the makeup of the adjudicators, and be more careful that they are forwarding cases/legislation that has merit.

I don’t think you’d be arguing this if it were Obama (or any other Democratic president) that got to select the justices. The country made a grave mistake electing Donald Trump and now we have to deal with the consequences.

 

I don’t like what they are deciding, I don’t agree with it, I think it does permanent damage to the Supreme Court, but just be careful about making it too easy for a political party to influence the courts. Unfortunately Trump got elected at the worst possible time for the courts and got to make three Supreme Court justices in four years.  That doesn’t mean the system is broken. The country got very unlucky there.

Edited May 20, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Fergasun]

I wouldn't say McConnell.  I think the Federalist Society and a desire to actively and intentionally pursue "conservative legal results" and bring back "originalism" is horrible.  Yes. McConnell is the face of that... but it's more. 

 

The Federalist Society says, "the state exists to preserve freedom".  Yet, there are 6 Federalist Society judges on the Supreme Court who are likely going to overturn Roe v. Wade which will bring presumably less freedom and more government regulation. 

 

Death to the Federalist Society

[Larry]

14 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Republicans are going to kill women with this non-sense.

You new around here?  

[Long n Left]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think you’d be arguing this if it were Obama (or any other Democratic president) that got to select the justices. The country made a grave mistake electing Donald Trump and now we have to deal with the consequences.

 

I don’t like what they are deciding, I don’t agree with it, I think it does permanent damage to the Supreme Court, but just be careful about making it too easy for a political party to influence the courts. Unfortunately Trump got elected at the worst possible time for the courts and got to make three Supreme Court justices in four years.  That doesn’t mean the system is broken. The country got very unlucky there.

Thanks for telling me what I think, and, yes, I do believe a system that was established over 230 years ago could do with some updating.

[LadySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I wouldn't say McConnell.  I think the Federalist Society and a desire to actively and intentionally pursue "conservative legal results" and bring back "originalism" is horrible.  Yes. McConnell is the face of that... but it's more. 

 

The Federalist Society says, "the state exists to preserve freedom".  Yet, there are 6 Federalist Society judges on the Supreme Court who are likely going to overturn Roe v. Wade which will bring presumably less freedom and more government regulation. 

 

Death to the Federalist Society

 

They only want government regulation of human beings (women and immigrants) and not corporations/business. Like before FDR. Like before the Great Depression.

[bearrock]

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has been denied communion by the San Francisco archbishop for supporting abortion right policies.  The Catholic Church can do whatever the hell they want.  But if they are being honest and consistent, how can they allow communion for politicians who support freedom of religion?  Isn't disbelief or apostasy a much graver sin?  What about freedom of speech?  Isn't it a much greater sin to denounce God or try to convince others to not believe?  If they still harbor some incredibly naive and ridiculous notion that religion and law should still intersect after 2000 years of Church history awash with blood of the innocents, they can go right on ahead.  Lunatics.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

21 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has been denied communion by the San Francisco archbishop for supporting abortion right policies.  The Catholic Church can do whatever the hell they want.  But if they are being honest and consistent, how can they allow communion for politicians who support freedom of religion?  Isn't disbelief or apostasy a much graver sin?  What about freedom of speech?  Isn't it a much greater sin to denounce God or try to convince others to not believe?  If they still harbor some incredibly naive and ridiculous notion that religion and law should still intersect after 2000 years of Church history awash with blood of the innocents, they can go right on ahead.  Lunatics.

The Catholic Church is evil. Enough said….

[PokerPacker]

25 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has been denied communion by the San Francisco archbishop for supporting abortion right policies.  The Catholic Church can do whatever the hell they want.  But if they are being honest and consistent, how can they allow communion for politicians who support freedom of religion?  Isn't disbelief or apostasy a much graver sin?  What about freedom of speech?  Isn't it a much greater sin to denounce God or try to convince others to not believe?  If they still harbor some incredibly naive and ridiculous notion that religion and law should still intersect after 2000 years of Church history awash with blood of the innocents, they can go right on ahead.  Lunatics.

Does that count as political action that could be used as ammo to revoke their tax-exempt status?

[Renegade7]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:28 AM, Larry said:

No, the problem is not that the SC exists. 
 

The problem is that we have been electing Senators and Presidents with a stated mandate, to put liars into that job. 

 

Idk, it feels like there's a far more complex system of checks and balances concerning the three branches of government outside of how the legislative and executive check the judiciary.

 

Their checks concerning putting people in the judiciary seem more like checks on each other, how do either check the judiciary branch after that?  When's the last time a Justice was impeached or investigated?

 

 I mean, FFS, what are they waiting for concerning Clearance Thomas and his wife right now?

On 5/20/2022 at 6:51 AM, Long n Left said:

Thanks for telling me what I think, and, yes, I do believe a system that was established over 230 years ago could do with some updating.

 

27 Amendments would agree with you.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Renegade7

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

27 Amendments would agree with you.

I think I've read that big chunk - like 60%? - of Americans support calling a convention to throw out the constitution and start over. 
 

They're bat-**** crazy. But, that's America. 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

I think I've read that big chunk - like 60%? - of Americans support calling a convention to throw out the constitution and start over. 
 

They're bat-**** crazy. But, that's America. 

 

They probably don't understand it enough to respect it. 

 

Jefferson wanted us to at minimum review it every 10 years, even I have trouble with some of them still.

 

60% sounds like a lot, not challenging you, curious when that poll was done and by whom.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Renegade7