Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Is domestic supply of infants in the Bible? 

 

its not in the bible, it is in a CDC report, which is where he was quoting.

its a quote from the cdc that says "nearly 1 milliom women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or in the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, buddha said:

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

Are you speaking specifically here or the GOP in general? You have to have been under a rock for the last 40 yrs to believe that isn't true of today's GOP in it's direct appeal to America's Christian Taliban.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, buddha said:

its not in the bible, it is in a CDC report, which is where he was quoting.

its a quote from the cdc that says "nearly 1 milliom women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or in the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."

 

 

not to be too be brutally crude but what is the match between numbers of white prospective parents willing to adopt children of color that would supposedly become available? I am perfectly aware many do,  I'm even willing to believe it is higher than I think it is, but would curious to see real numbers. 

the other mismatch however is that per the study I linked to upthread, many(most?) women seeking abortions already have children. So would those women give those added children up or just end up in a deeper hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Are you speaking specifically here or the GOP in general? You have to have been under a rock for the last 40 yrs to believe that isn't true of today's GOP in it's direct appeal to America's Christian Taliban.

im speaking for myself.  i dont think i've seen anyone on this board make that claim either.

legal wise, the use of outside sources to interpret us law is an argument made by liberals, not conservatives.  

which legal opinion that cited the bible were you thinking of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

im speaking for myself.  i dont think i've seen anyone on this board make that claim either.

legal wise, the use of outside sources to interpret us law is an argument made by liberals, not conservatives.  

which legal opinion that cited the bible were you thinking of?

I think legislators speak for the GOP position on law as well as Judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

not to be too be brutally crude but what is the match between numbers of white prospective parents willing to adopt children of color that would supposedly become available? I am perfectly aware many do,  I'm even willing to believe it is higher than I think it is, but would curious to see real numbers. 

the other mismatch however is that per the study I linked to upthread, many(most?) women seeking abortions already have children. So would those women give those added children up or just end up in a deeper hole?

i have no idea about adoption numbers.  i merely gave some context to a tweet that was designed to make people angry and provided no context.

i find the adoption portion of the argument - if there was one - unpersuasive.  alito doesnt really make the argument but is talking about how people's attitudes toward childbirth, motherhood, and adoption have changed since roe.  in that part he was correct, but i find the "just put it up for adoption, its not hard" idea to be very simplistic and cruel.  of course, the alternative is death so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think legislators speak for the GOP position on law as well as Judges.

so there is no legal opinion that you know of that cites the bible as some source for the outcome of a case.  me neither.  

since the bible is the foundation for western ethics and morality, one could argue its presence is felt in every law that is passed.  especially laws that give to the poor (as tater will point out, the ones advocated by democrats and argued against by republicans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, buddha said:

so there is no legal opinion that you know of that cites the bible as some source for the outcome of a case.  me neither.  

since the bible is the foundation for western ethics and morality, one could argue its presence is felt in every law that is passed.  especially laws that give to the poor (as tater will point out, the ones advocated by democrats and argued against by republicans).

Still, there is a world of difference between building rationales on widely accepted social mores and building them on specific theological holdings from the same corpus that may have very narrow acceptance. Not to mention that the Judeo Christian tradition gives itself too much credit - there is plenty of moral enlightenment available in other ancient traditions as well. But I've already spoken to my skepticism about too much focus on history in general. I think sometimes the value of looking at decision precedent get transferred to a reverence for history in general that is misplaced. In general history sucked.

But to be honest, by contradicting his own previous logic enough to get to where he wanted to go, Scalia brought me to understand that the logic given in decisions is not particularly meaningful. They find a way to back fill the logic to get the result they want 90% of the time.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

The leaked opinion cited the CDC's quote on the lack of domestic supply of infants. They are apparently using that as part of their opinion to overturn Roe. 

Gee, does that mean they are going to start overturning media mergers because I can't get cheap internet?

......didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

The leaked opinion cited the CDC's quote on the lack of domestic supply of infants. They are apparently using that as part of their opinion to overturn Roe. 

Actually on 2nd thought this is doubly disgusting - Alito justifies his decision by expecting the poor to supply wombs for the barren upper classes? Handmaid's tale indeed. What an 'effin bastard. To even consider that as relevant completely denies the dignity of those women.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Actually on 2nd thought this is doubly disgusting - Alito justifies his decision by expecting the poor to supply wombs for the barren upper classes? Handmaid's tale indeed. What an 'effin bastard. To even consider that as relevant completely denies the dignity of those women.

you should read it before you comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oblong said:

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. 

I agree, but tell that to the moral majority that's always going around telling us what terrible people we all are for supporting abortion, gay marriage, LGBTQ equality, and public assistance programs for the poor.

The moral majority always wants to selectively throw the bible in our face and demand we obey their version of Christianity. So if they do that, then throw the bible back at them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm sure they'll compromise. 

 

"McConnell said even if the GOP reclaims the Senate, he would not entertain ditching the 60-threshold rule to pass a national abortion ban, however. 'No carve out of the filibuster – period,' he said. 'For any subject.'"

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

"McConnell said even if the GOP reclaims the Senate, he would not entertain ditching the 60-threshold rule to pass a national abortion ban, however. 'No carve out of the filibuster – period,' he said. 'For any subject.'"

 

We all know Mitch McConnell is a man of his word. I'm sure he said something similar before he eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court justices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...