SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

it may even force republicans to compromise now that they have to govern and win elections rather than just rant about roe.

I don't have an appropriately large font for the "good luck with that" 

 

[buddha]

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."

 

 

[gehringer_2]

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.

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't have an appropriately large font for the "good luck with that" 

 

The same people telling us we were alarmist and that Republicans wouldn't overturn Roe are now telling us just be patient and they will compromise. 

[buddha]

the same people who have never actually read the draft opinion or know anything about the law, sure do have a lot of opinions they saw on twitter.

[Motown Bombers]

Buddha is the one playing the violin on the Titanic. 

[gehringer_2]

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?

[buddha]

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?

[gehringer_2]

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.

[Motown Bombers]

Of course they don't cite the Bible in their legal opinions. They just reverse search for whatever legal precedent they can fine that affirms their Biblical beliefs. 

[buddha]

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...

[buddha]

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).

[Motown Bombers]

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. 

[gehringer_2]

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 May 7, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

I'm sure Oklahoma will compromise eventually. 

 

[gehringer_2]

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.

[gehringer_2]

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 May 7, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

I really need to read Handmaid's Tale so I can understand what our future looks like. 

[Motown Bombers]

I'm sure they'll compromise. 

 

[buddha]

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.

[Motown Bombers]

The thing is, there are plenty of children in foster care. It's like going to a dog breeder to get a pure breed instead of picking one up at the shelter. Next thing you know we will have a Lebensborn program. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

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.

[mtutiger]

 

[buddha]

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.'"

 

[Motown Bombers]

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.