SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

Just now, mtutiger said:

In the case of the SCOTUS, isn't it possible that some of the distrust may be self-inflicted?

how so?

i think its more inflicted by mitch mcconnell.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, buddha said:

but isnt that - and some of your other arguments on democracy - the argument to get rid of roe?  and send it back to the states and the "people" to vote and decide?

sure, in the sense that where it is being dealt with today is surely a highly undemocratic one where the action of the court speaking for the whole nation is clearly not a reflection of where the whole nation is on the issue. The question of how much granularity we can have in the law on a state to state basis and when the voice of the national majority needs to trump state prerogative and at what level what rights are defined are much more fair questions to argue differences over IMV.

I have linked concerns in that area. I am a very big believer that the logical sense of the Constitution, not to mention the overwhelming view of the current American population, is strongly supportive of the kind of privacy rights embodied in Griswold. The state has no business telling me who I have what kind of relationship with etc. In that sense I worry more about the conservative Court's antipathy to Griswalrd et al in general as the mechanism for rejecting Roe. 

No-one with their eyes open can deny that the agenda doesn't end with abortion, it goes to gay rights and civil rights and the continuing expansion of corporate rights in their stead in general. That leads a lot of us to feel the need to play defense  across the board.

Edited May 3, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

we can't

balkanization is going to be accelerated - real Articles of Confederation feel to all of this

I try to be optimistic, but it's getting really hard to be too optimistic at the direction this country is going in.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

We deserve it because half of the people in this country don't vote.  They don't think it matters.   When half of the country doesn't care, we get this.  

Children don't vote, either. Do they deserve whatever we foist on them since they can't stop it?

This is not the time or place to litigate this exact point, but you know as well as I that it's about more than just who votes or who doesn't (or in too many cases, who can't). A system has been established that has allowed a minority to establish law and policy against the wishes of the majority, and it starts with an electoral process designed over two centuries ago that allows a candidate who gets the second-most votes to win the election over the person who gets the most votes.

Speaking only for myself, I think it's fucking asinine. Feel free to disagree.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Gotta hand it to Susie—she works hard on maintaining her brand.

Susan Collins statement: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.

Wow, and that and 5 bucks will get you a Vente at Starbucks.

[Motown Bombers]

What's there to be optimistic about? A large percentage of young people didn't vote because Hillary wasn't pure enough and now they are stuck with a conservative Supreme Court for most of their adult life. 

[oblong]

46 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Many people believe this to be true. I include myself in this.

Is it not only appropriate but also a moral imperative to use lethal force to stop what you know would be the murder of a 10 year old?

I think so.

 

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

how so?

i think its more inflicted by mitch mcconnell.

For one, the fact that Brett and Neil and Amy told one thing to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and they did another? Or how about the wife of one of the SCOTUS members was involved in the planning for halting the inauguration after the 2020 Election, yet we're all supposed to believe that member never interacted  on those matters and he doesn't need to recuse himself about questions related to that event? Or maybe it's the fact that they kinda pick and choose on cases related to gerrymandering / VRA as to whether it's their role to intervene?

Maybe some of those reasons are less justified than others, but it doesn't really change the fact that these are actions that weigh on the court's credibility for a lot of folks. It just is what it is.

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

sure, in the sense that where it is being dealt with today is surely a highly undemocratic one where the action of the court speaking for the whole nation is clearly not a reflection of where the whole nation is on the issue. The question of how much granularity we can have in the law on a state to state basis and when the voice of the national majority needs to trump state prerogative and at what level what rights are defined are much more fair questions to argue differences over IMV.

I have linked concerns in that area. I am a very big believer that the logical sense of the Constitution, not to mention the overwhelming view of the current American population, is strongly supportive of the kind of privacy rights embodied in Griswold. The state has no business telling me who I have what kind of relationship with etc. In that sense I worry more about the conservative Court's antipathy to Griswalrd et al in general as the mechanism for rejecting Roe. 

No-one with their eyes open can deny that the agenda doesn't end with abortion, it goes to gay rights and civil rights and the continuing expansion of corporate rights in there stead in general. That leads a lot of us to feel the need to defend the generalized across the board.

alito's opinion distinguishes griswold et al from roe, but i realize that may not be any comfort.  and, just a reminder, this is a draft brief from february which will be changed and may not end up being the opinion at all.  if you recall, in 1992 kennedy changed his mind at the last second or else roe would have been overturned then.

the "right to privacy" can be quite vague and hard to pin down.

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

Is it not only appropriate but also a moral imperative to use lethal force to stop what you know would be the murder of a 10 year old?

I think so.

 

would you place any limits on when you can get an abortion?

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Honestly, I think you would see more women go to Mexico for abortions than to other states. 

Well, if they do that, then Trump 47's ICE can arrest them at the border and confine them to a jail cell full of Mexican babies who've been separated by policy from their families.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

the "right to privacy" can be quite vague and hard to pin down.

HaHa - "I know it when I see it"

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I regret a lot of things in my life, including criticizing Hillary Clinton the way I did back in 2015/2016. The one thing I don't regret though, is deciding to vote for Hillary Clinton in the end. Had she been elected President we wouldn't be here.

I disagree—I think if Hillary had won, Trump would be president right now.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

If the Republicans don't pay a political price at the ballot box as a result of what is happening to women's choice and abortion rights then all this discussion we're having here and all the hand ringing and protesting across the country is for not. If you consider yourself pro women, pro choice, pro healthcare, pro religious freedom, pro democracy, pro liberty, in any way, shape or form, you have to get out and vote and make the Republicans pay a steep political price at the ballot box. If they win the House and Senate then you as an American have not done your job. Get out and vote for Democratic candidates or else you have failed if you consider yourself pro women, choice, healthcare, democracy, religious freedom, liberty, and on. Even if that Democratic candidate is too moderate, not progressive enough or too far to the left, if they have a (D) next to their name on the ballot, get out and vote for them. That's all there is to it.

This. Or else Republican legislatures passing voting restrictions specifically to keep likely Democratic voters from the polls will have done their job. One o the other.

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

For one, the fact that Brett and Neil and Amy told one thing to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and they did another? Or how about the wife of one of the SCOTUS members was involved in the planning for halting the inauguration after the 2020 Election, yet we're all supposed to believe that member never interacted  on those matters and he doesn't need to recuse himself about questions related to that event? Or maybe it's the fact that they kinda pick and choose on cases related to gerrymandering / VRA as to whether it's their role to intervene?

Maybe some of those reasons are less justified than others, but it doesn't really change the fact that these are actions that weigh on the court's credibility for a lot of folks. It just is what it is.

what did brett and neil and amy exactly say in their confirmation hearings?

if you want to question the legitimacy of the court, you can go back to bush v gore, i suppose.  or dred scott. heck, everyone's least favorite president andrew jackson flat out ignored the court and dared them to stop him. blame that rascal john marshall!

i dont think of overturning roe affects the court's legitimacy, i think mcconnell's actions in preventing garland from getting a hearing do.  and - even moreso - i think trump's election and actions while in office degraded the presidency and his court appointments are tainted by his actions.

but at the heart of it all is social media.  everything is instantly politicized by grifters on all sides who use the medium for their own gain.  that's always occurred with the media but is more consequential now that everyone is connected on the internet.

[Edman85]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I disagree—I think if Hillary had won, Trump would be president right now.

I think Trump would have gone away. MAGA would have been rejected by the Republican party. The only reason it ever took hold is because he won.

 

I do regret voting for Johnson in 2016, but that just meant Trump won Florida by 102,911 votes instead of 102,910. And Florida wasn't enough to swing it.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Edman85

[Tiger337]

21 minutes ago, buddha said:

but isnt that - and some of your other arguments on democracy - the argument to get rid of roe?  and send it back to the states and the "people" to vote and decide?

as an aside, i think the erosion in unity and acceptance of authority in american institutions is a huge issue brought on mostly by social media.  turns out, its difficult to keep a nation of 350 million people together.  a republic, if we can keep it.  perhaps we cant?

I don't think we can.  I have grown to realize that the divisions in this country are much bigger than I always assumed.  Social media didn't bring it on.  It exposed it and gave more people a voice to express their differences.  The extremes are much more highly populated than I realized.   Balkanization seems reasonable to me.  The questions are can it be done relatively peacefully? And can it be can be done, so the different parts can thrive economically and militarily?  

[mtutiger]

Just now, buddha said:

what did brett and neil and amy exactly say in their confirmation hearings?

I mean, Lisa Murkowski literally just came out and said her confidence in the court has been rocked. 

Make of that what you will.... I get that it's probably pearl clutching at some level, but I doubt that social media is what's causing her confidence to be rocked here.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't think we can.  I have grown to realize that the divisions in this country are much bigger than I always assumed.  Social media didn't bring it on.  It exposed it and gave more people a voice to express their differences.  The extremes are much more highly populated than I realized.   Balkanization seems reasonable to me.  The questions are can it be done relatively peacefully? And can it be can be done, so the different parts can thrive economically and militarily?  

I don't think much can be done....

The conversation here was probably one of the more civil ones online today, and yet you still have words like "Nazi" and "Pharisee" and "murder" and "fascism" being thrown around. There's just too much division on this issue, which is a big reason why I try to avoid talking about it most of the time.

[oblong]

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

would you place any limits on when you can get an abortion?

Frankly no.

There's too many caveats and potential exceptions for there to be a a reasonable basis for a law to be written that's fair.  Ultimately it should be left to the woman and her doctor.   That's how I would prefer it.  But if you wanted to have something I would listen to a ban in the third trimester with exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the woman.   By health I mean complications.  I wouldn't restrict it to "life in danger".   The woman and the doctor can decide what that means.  Not a legislator or judge with no medical training or background.

I trust women that they would not want to go through that unless there was a good reason and same with the medical provider.   

 

[RatkoVarda]

7 minutes ago, buddha said:

alito's opinion distinguishes griswold et al from roe, but i realize that may not be any comfort.  and, just a reminder, this is a draft brief from february which will be changed and may not end up being the opinion at all.  if you recall, in 1992 kennedy changed his mind at the last second or else roe would have been overturned then.

the "right to privacy" can be quite vague and hard to pin down.

they tried the same BS in Bush v Gore, writing that this case is such complete bunk it should never be cited ever again by any attorney. of course, it is continually cited ever since

if you are knocking out the main pillar of substantive due process after 50 years, it is 100% complete BS that the other  substantive due process cases are somehow safe. that language is useless and he knows it.

that is very much like the Roberts court, trying to make sure they implement their take-over gradually

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Buddha can chime in but my guess is that ultimately even a conservative SCOTUS is going to be forced to rule that one state cannot bind  conduct in another in that way. It's a foundational precedent that states must recognize each others sovereignty and jurisdiction. To undercut that would basically be to dissolve the Union.

That's easy: they can dissolve the Union in the way you suggest here and still maintain that the Union is stronger than ever, and any opinion or evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as fake news.

[buddha]

Just now, mtutiger said:

I mean, Lisa Murkowski literally just came out and said her confidence in the court has been rocked. 

Make of that what you will.... I get that it's probably pearl clutching at some level, but I doubt that social media is what's causing her confidence to be rocked here.

i didnt follow those hearings (because theyre all a joke and just a way for senators to preen like peacocks), so i dont know what they said.  i would imagine they said stuff so banal and amorphous that it meant nothing, and that collins and murkowski were going to vote them in if the gop needed their votes, and would vote not to confirm them if the gop didnt need their votes.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Really, really concerning. And ramifications beyond the issue of abortion as well.

Yup. Abortion is a gateway issue to implementing complete autocracy over all important aspects of American's lives. And if you don't want to have all the important aspects of your life circumscribed for you, then obviously you've been planning to break the law.

Edited May 3, 2022 by chasfh

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

Frankly no.

There's too many caveats and potential exceptions for there to be a a reasonable basis for a law to be written that's fair.  Ultimately it should be left to the woman and her doctor.   That's how I would prefer it.  But if you wanted to have something I would listen to a ban in the third trimester with exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the woman.   By health I mean complications.  I wouldn't restrict it to "life in danger".   The woman and the doctor can decide what that means.  Not a legislator or judge with no medical training or background.

I trust women that they would not want to go through that unless there was a good reason and same with the medical provider.   

 

understood.

i think any abortion after the first trimester is barbaric.  but quite frankly, those are very very rare.  i too would expect abortions in those circumstances to be due to medical necessity.  at least i hope that would be the case.