SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Lets also not forget the filibuster that the Republicans say should not be removed but was removed for Supreme Court justices because it was more valuable for the Republicans to pack the court with conservative judges. Now they have a conservative court for at least another generation or two and will legislate through the courts. That's a rigged system. 

That's the other side of the equation. Once one side is in power by basically non-democratic means, their loyalty to the democratic process can easily evaporate in the pursuit of the maintenance of their power, which is exactly what we see in this GOP.

Edited May 7, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

It's not just senate representation. Lets look at the house. Wyoming has one congressman and a population of 576,000. California has 52 congressional districts. Whoa, that sounds like a lot but the average size of a district in California is 750,000. If California were divided up into districts of 576,000, it would have 68 congressional districts. But what about Texas you extreme liberal? Well of course Texas would have roughly 51 congressional districts vs 38, however, Trump only won Texas by 6 points. Biden won California by 29 points. If you start divided Texas up into more districts you will end up with more Democrats. It's why Texas deliberately wanted to undercount it's own population in the state. The Republicans are so desperate to maintain power that they would intentionally forfeit seats because they cannot gerrymander many more districts. Rigged system. 

[mtutiger]

10 hours ago, Edman85 said:

One thing to be mindful of when being tooooo flippant on the pro-choice side.

Some of the people who are most ardent on the pro-life side, I have found, are adoptees or born to a single mom. One of my best friends growing up was in the latter boat. They do tend to see abortion as a personal issue because any time somebody slips and demeans the value of the life that is prevented, it is and can be a personal insult.

It is one of the reasons this is a touchy issue on all sides and extreme rhetoric does nothing but alienate. The debates do drive me nuts.

This is fair.

Having said that, when one takes the most absolutist position on the pro-life side, it only seems fair to ask what the punishment should be. Or to bring up the kinds of situations that are kinda grey, like ectopic pregnancies or what it means for certain forms of contraception.

The lack of response or interest would suggest that the folks either don't have good responses or just don't care about any of that stuff. Because it's easier to stew in righteous anger than it is to deal with the dilemmas that the real world can throw at you.

[pfife]

All they care about is that there are more babies to take to Tennessee and marry because they're sick pedophiles 

[mtutiger]

27 minutes ago, pfife said:

All they care about is that there are more babies to take to Tennessee and marry because they're sick pedophiles 

Come on.

Again, I take the moral stance seriously. You don't have to agree with it, but it's totally valid.

But there needs to be more answers about the situations that arise from taking that moral stance to the kinds of extremes that many states (such as the one where I live) are prepped to do. And despite what some may believe, I don't think there's really a lot of discussion about this among folks who wish to impose those extremes.

[pfife]

I take the moral stance seriously.     I'm just not sure most of these people are taking that stance based on that morality.   I base that assertion on the obvious evidence that the said morality clearly does not permeate other stances they take.

I actually probably take that more stance more seriously than most forced birth advocates do.

Edited May 7, 2022 by pfife

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

44 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Stop being so hyperbolic, women aren't going to jail for having abortions. Fake news!

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, pfife said:

I take the moral stance seriously.     I'm just not sure most of these people are taking that stance based on that morality.   I base that assertion on the obvious evidence that the said morality clearly does not permeate other stances they take.

I actually probably take that more stance more seriously than most forced birth advocates do.

Speaking of being morally superior and the moral majority, if the fundamentalist Christian right and Republicans actually cared about biblical principals they'd be the biggest proponents of social welfare programs that raise one's quality of life. at least according to Matthew 25:34-40.

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me."

And Isaiah 58:10

"If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun."

And Ezekiel 18:7

He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as security by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy.

And Proverbs 22:9

A generous person will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.

But these people are too busy screaming until they are red in the face about abortion, socialism, and lazy blacks on welfare.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But these people are too busy screaming until they are red in the face about abortion, socialism, and lazy blacks on welfare.

I don't recognize much of what I take the teachings of the NT to be in US Evangelical Christianity. TBF, there is some pushback from within, but not enough to alter the political alignment the Evangelical church has chosen. You can still find a more social justice aligned church in the US, but its numbers have been in long decline and the Evangelicals accuse them of being too theologically squishy- basically anyone who doesn't accept their very particular takes on "Bible Inerrancy."

The sad fact is that it is much easier and appealing (and profitable) to preach certainty to a population that is as philosophically umoored as is that in America today.

Edited May 7, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I'm Kenneth Copeland and we Christians believe in the sanctity of life! But what about helping the poor Mr. Copeland, do you believe in that?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[mtutiger]

26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't recognize much of what I take the teachings of the NT to be in US Evangelical Christianity. TBF, there is some pushback from within, but not enough to alter the political alignment the Evangelical church has chosen. You can still find a more social justice aligned church in the US, but its numbers have been in long decline and the Evangelicals accuse them of being too theologically squishy- basically anyone who doesn't accept their very particular takes on "Bible Inerrancy."

Same is true of a number of American Catholic bishops, who always seem to be angry with Francis because he tends to emphasize issues more in line with the Jesuit traditions.

It's not that he doesn't believe the same things they do on any number of hot button issues, but they seem to dislike that he balances it with more of an aim toward social justice.

Edited May 7, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

23 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I'm Kenneth Copeland and we Christians believe in the sanctity of life! But what about helping the poor Mr. Copeland, do you believe in that?

Kenny C is terrible, but he's also not necessarily indicative of all of Christianity in the US

Edited May 7, 2022 by mtutiger

[Tigeraholic1]

45 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Speaking of being morally superior and the moral majority, if the fundamentalist Christian right and Republicans actually cared about biblical principals they'd be the biggest proponents of social welfare programs that raise one's quality of life. at least according to Matthew 25:34-40.

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me."

And Isaiah 58:10

"If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun."

And Ezekiel 18:7

He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as security by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy.

And Proverbs 22:9

A generous person will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.

But these people are too busy screaming until they are red in the face about abortion, socialism, and lazy blacks on welfare.

 

it’s pretty easy to quote the Bible when you are looking for how we should lead our lives.

 

Psalms 139: 16
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

[Motown Bombers]

Yeah the Bible contradicts itself all the time and that is what some people live their lives and govern others by. 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Speaking of being morally superior and the moral majority, if the fundamentalist Christian right and Republicans actually cared about biblical principals they'd be the biggest proponents of social welfare programs that raise one's quality of life. at least according to Matthew 25:34-40.

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me."

And Isaiah 58:10

"If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun."

And Ezekiel 18:7

He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as security by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy.

And Proverbs 22:9

A generous person will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.

But these people are too busy screaming until they are red in the face about abortion, socialism, and lazy blacks on welfare.

"you shall not murder"

- more places in the bible than you can shake a stick at.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

"you shall not murder"

- more places in the bible than you can shake a stick at.

OK - If you want to play scripture quotation bingo check Ex 21:22. That is not a murder. Straight from the core of the OT law, of which Matt 5:17 says not one iota will pass away.

All of which is immaterial because the Bible is not the source authority for US Law, the consensus of the governed population is and I'd be very surprised if anyone can show a majority of the population thinks the Bible  - by whatever of a million possible different interpretations and internal contradictions, should be.

Heck if you wanted to take Jesus at his word you should shut down most of the police and court system because you wouldn't  prosecute anyone for theft or simple assault and absolutely not for sexual indiscretions.

Edited May 7, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

The Bible is not a scientific source. It should not be the basis for any US law, let alone one concerning both biology and bodily autonomy. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

[Motown Bombers]

Is domestic supply of infants in the Bible? 

 

[buddha]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

OK - If you want to play scripture quotation bingo check Ex 21:22. That is not a murder. Straight from the core of the OT law, of which Matt 5:17 says not one iota will pass away.

All of which is immaterial because the Bible is not the source authority for US Law, the consensus of the governed population is and I'd be very surprised if anyone can show a majority of the population thinks the Bible  - by whatever of a million possible different interpretations and internal contradictions, should be.

Heck if you wanted to take Jesus at his word you should shut down most of the police and court system because you wouldn't  prosecute anyone for theft or simple assault and absolutely not for sexual indiscretions.

tater started quoting bible versus in his usual attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with him as some sort of simpleton racist bumpkin, not me.  

no one has said the bible is a source for us law, not sure where you got that from.

roe (and casey, since it affirmed parts of roe and changed the analysis) is a tortured piece of constitutional law.  if alito's opinion resembles the majority opinion wjen its released, we'll see where the law goes.  in another 10-12 years you may be surprised what it looks like on many states.  it may even force republicans to compromise now that they have to govern and win elections rather than just rant about roe.

[gehringer_2]

LOL - Maureen Down (who I am not great fan of) did have a good line today - actually she was was borrowing a line from the late Mary McGrory: "John Robert appears to be a small man trying to walk a large dog."