SCOTUS and whatnot

[oblong]

some group is urging people to protest catholic churches on Mother's Day.

Completely stupid idea and you'll lose a lot of goodwill.  Typical of the extreme left.  Probably the same ones who came up with the Defund Police slogan.

 

[pfife]

Yep... interesting how one side can violently attack our own capitol and feel no political pain for it but other side can't protest at a church without political pain.   This country is pretty fucked up. 

[Motown Bombers]

My brother went and protested a Catholic church after that very church went and protested an abortion clinic. Ironically, he was accusing the church of being pedophiles and groomers look before the Republicans ran with it. 

[oblong]

For many women it will be their first Mother's Day mass since 2019.  Some will be going to their first one without their mom.  They won't be thinking about politics.  It's not about the church hierarchy.  A lot of parishoners actually disagree with the Church's stance on contraception and abortion.  These protests will do nothing for the cause but simply serve as an outlet for the protesters.  If the goal is change then this isn't the way.  if the goal is to bitch and complain... have at it.  You'll end up right where you are now with no movement forward.  That's how we ended up with Trump because the extreme left is not happy unless they get 100% of what hey want. If they can't then they stay home and will whine later on.

 

[Motown Bombers]

If I was going to protest a church, it would be one of the white Evangelical churches. The ones who send protestors to funerals of gay people and bomb abortion clinics. Republicans should protest the Catholic church since they are the pedophiles and groomers. 

[pfife]

I think we ended up with Trump because millions upon millions of Republicans voted for him.   

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

If I was going to protest a church, it would be one of the white Evangelical churches. The ones who send protestors to funerals of gay people and bomb abortion clinics. Republicans should protest the Catholic church since they are the pedophiles and groomers. 

It's a fair point. Surveys consistently show that Catholics may love their church (no doubt many because of ties that come with being born into it) but pretty much ignore it's theological demands. Social alignment between church and parishioners is probably  higher in Evangelical churches because a higher number have chosen their church because they were already predisposed to what was being said there.

Edited May 6, 2022 by gehringer_2

[1776]

41 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think we ended up with Trump because millions upon millions of Republicans voted for him.   

In my honest opinion, I believe Trump was elected because Hillary was the other option. I voted Libertarian in 2016 even though Gary Johnson imploded on Aleppo. I couldn’t vote for either Trump or Hillary. 

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

For many women it will be their first Mother's Day mass since 2019.  Some will be going to their first one without their mom.  They won't be thinking about politics.  It's not about the church hierarchy.  A lot of parishoners actually disagree with the Church's stance on contraception and abortion.  These protests will do nothing for the cause but simply serve as an outlet for the protesters.  If the goal is change then this isn't the way.  if the goal is to bitch and complain... have at it.  You'll end up right where you are now with no movement forward.  That's how we ended up with Trump because the extreme left is not happy unless they get 100% of what hey want. If they can't then they stay home and will whine later on.

 

The left is already viewed as the Godless party by the right. Protests like these will only solidifiy those beliefs and make the line harder between them.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

The left is already viewed as the Godless party by the right. Protests like these will only solidifiy those beliefs and make the line harder between them.

Thankfully we aren't here to elect religious leaders. I want more Godless people in government. 

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

Thankfully we aren't here to elect religious leaders. I want more Godless people in government. 

Many people do want religious leaders.  

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

Many people do want religious leaders.  

I know and that's the problem. I think we need to clarify too Christians. Not the same God those people in Dearborn worship. Speaking of which, are Republicans still worried about Sharia law in Dearborn? 

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Many people do want religious leaders.  

yeah, who needs leaders like abraham lincoln, fdr, or teddy roosevelt.  thise guys were just a bunch of christian talibans!

you dont elect a "religious leader", but you can and do elect plenty kf good leaders who also happen to be religious.

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, buddha said:

yeah, who needs leaders like abraham lincoln, fdr, or teddy roosevelt.  thise guys were just a bunch of christian talibans!

you dont elect a "religious leader", but you can and do elect plenty kf good leaders who also happen to be religious.

I don't give a shit if they are religious or not. What I do care about is when they start imposing their religious beliefs on me. 

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, buddha said:

thise guys were just a bunch of christian talibans!

all racist, right?

[buddha]

20 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

but he's deeply rooted in history!

one of the arguments in roe/casey for finding the right to have an abortion as protected by the 14th amendment is that the right has a long history of being present in the common law/history even if it is not explicitly written into the constitution.  roe/casey and the briefs in support of them in dobbs cite this as a reason to find such a right to an abortion.

alito, of course, takes issue with this.  he goes all the way back to the beginnings of the common law to trace a history of the opposite being true: that abortion has always been different and has never been allowed and almost always been criminalized. he cites to a number of treatises on the english common law (from which american law was based) that talk about the illegality of abortion after "quickening."  that's where hale was mentioned.  he cites to a number of laws enacted in america in the 19th century criminalizing abortion as well.  

the argument is a response to the foundation of roe/casey, to contradict its argument that the right to an abortion has always been available in america when the opposite has often been true.

he tries to explicitly separate abortion from contraception, sexuality, etc.  writing multiple times that abortion is much different because it involves the death of another "unborn person."

i'm not saying he's right.  but you keep joking about somethint being "deeply rooted in history" so i thought i would at least try to explain why he wrote that.  its an argument against the fourteenth amendment argument put forth in roe/casey.

[buddha]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

all racist, right?

of course!

the fact that the lincoln memorial still stands is an affront to america.

[Tiger337]

22 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I don't give a shit if they are religious or not. What I do care about is when they start imposing their religious beliefs on me. 

Most of the people in my life are at least somewhat religious.  Most of them you barely even know it because they keep it to themselves.  That's how it should be.  There are some exceptions.    

Edited May 6, 2022 by Tiger337

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Most of the people in my life are at least somewhat religious.  Most of them you barely even know it because they keep it to themselves.  That's how it should be.  There are some exceptions.    

I was raised in a Catholic household and went to Catholic school from K-12. You wouldn't know my parents were Catholics. The problem is, these white Evangelicals are trying to take over. It's been going on since the 90's. You have Mike Pence, a Vice President, who said he swears to the bible first and then the constitution. Imagine if Obama said the same thing but replace Bible with Quran? 

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

alito, of course, takes issue with this.  he goes all the way back to the beginnings of the common law to trace a history of the opposite being true: that abortion has always been different and has never been allowed and almost always been criminalized. he cites to a number of treatises on the english common law (from which american law was based) that talk about the illegality of abortion after "quickening."  that's where hale was mentioned.  he cites to a number of laws enacted in america in the 19th century criminalizing abortion as well.  

But it's a fundamentally flawed way to argue anything. "history" in and of itself never has any probative value with respect to values -you can find anything you want in 'history' good and bad, and anytime any justice goes there (and especially to Catholic Scholasticism) I'm going to call nonsense. It's just another way to import some particular culture's superstitions into a modern gloss. If you can't make a rational argument that is intelligible to a current audience you don't actually have an argument.

Which is why I will continue to make fun of Alito.

[buddha]

this has always been the problem: how to make abortion legal nationally in a country that is evenly split on whether it should be?

roe waa an awful way to do that.  and as a piece of constitutional law, its very suspect and very easily attacked.  the justices had the right idea, but its difficult to put it into practice.  the consequences are that roe was bad law and has been sort of a punchline for judges acting as legislators ever since.  lots of liberal commentators have felt the same way, including ginsburg (famously).

if alito's opinion ends up being the actual opinion (which, again, is far from 100%), then i suspect you'll see an initial rush in many conservative led states to pass onerus and punitive bans on abortions and those who provide them, followed by a backlash and then a general walking back to more tolerable bans (things like what you see in most western countries).  

that's if this follows the usual patterns.  otoh, we may be beyond the point of compromise on such things and perhaps it will get much worse?

so is dobbs dred scot II?  the decision that hastens the civil war?

[buddha]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

But it's a fundamentally flawed way to argue anything. "history" in and of itself never has any probative value with respect to values -you can find anything you want in 'history' good and bad, and anytime any justice goes there (and especially to Catholic Scholasticism) I'm going to call nonsense. It's just another way to import some particular culture's superstitions into a modern gloss. If you can't make a rational argument that is intelligible to a current audience you don't actually have an argument.

Which is why I will continue to make fun of Alito.

then youre calling nonsense on roe and casey too.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

this has always been the problem: how to make abortion legal nationally in a country that is evenly split on whether it should be?

roe waa an awful way to do that.  and as a piece of constitutional law, its very suspect and very easily attacked.  the justices had the right idea, but its difficult to put it into practice.  the consequences are that roe was bad law and has been sort of a punchline for judges acting as legislators ever since.  lots of liberal commentators have felt the same way, including ginsburg (famously).

if alito's opinion ends up being the actual opinion (which, again, is far from 100%), then i suspect you'll see an initial rush in many conservative led states to pass onerus and punitive bans on abortions and those who provide them, followed by a backlash and then a general walking back to more tolerable bans (things like what you see in most western countries).  

that's if this follows the usual patterns.  otoh, we may be beyond the point of compromise on such things and perhaps it will get much worse?

so is dobbs dred scot II?  the decision that hastens the civil war?

It's pretty easy. If you have a moral opposition to abortion than don't get one. If you cannot control yourself than sew your knees together. Instead, religious moral objections to abortion will be forced on everyone. 

[gehringer_2]

17 minutes ago, buddha said:

then youre calling nonsense on roe and casey too.

not at all, an argument based on personal privacy needs no historical antecedents to be understood or explained as a free standing rational argument. Whether someone wants to cite history is superfluous there. What Alito wants to argue indirectly is the personhood of an embryo, but he can't do that without resorting to some kind of indirect or implicit religious argument because there is no other ground to stand on to there. Short using a backhanded argument to introduce a religious approach no-one has any damn idea about when a human's life as a sentient being begins  and there is no deductive process in the world that will get you there. All that is left is for people to make a good faith effort to be reasonable with each other about imposing their beliefs on each other.

Edited May 6, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

roe waa an awful way to do that.  and as a piece of constitutional law, its very suspect and very easily attacked.  the justices had the right idea, but its difficult to put it into practice. 

This I will not argue. It is not an easy circle to square.