SCOTUS and whatnot

[Kacie]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

You're spot on with everything you posted, i'm only singling this portion out, not because you're wrong, but just a point I want to make.  I may be off a bit, but i'm pretty confident the last time I read about when abortions happened, 99% of abortions occur by the mid-way point of the second trimester.  So your point above is well taken.

But that brings me back to this past week when if the dems only put in a ban in the third trimester outside of the health of the mother, you might have seen it pass.  

So to me, the Dems are willing to allow what we know is likely inevitable to happen, in the hopes that they only get beat a little bit in the mid-terms.  Instead of doing something that their voters want, they are once again choosing to use it as a campaign issue.  How did that work out for them with Garland?  I don't get it.

Admittedly, I don't know all the exact details of the bill, but I am fairly sure that there was no wording in the bill that specifically permitted third trimester abortions.  My understanding is that it lifted the restrictions of current state laws that prohibited abortions at 6 weeks, etc, required ultrasounds, waiting periods, things like that.  Again,  virtually no one is in favor of third trimester abortions without the usual caveats.  It's about going back to the previous status quo of Roe vs. Wade before fake Christians took over.

Oblong is right.  The rhetoric just keeps getting more extreme.  Not even in favor of saving the mother's life, not in favor of exceptions for rape or incest, wanting to *save* ectopic pregnancies. Not interested in life at all.

[ewsieg]

11 hours ago, Kacie said:

Oblong is right.  The rhetoric just keeps getting more extreme.  Not even in favor of saving the mother's life, not in favor of exceptions for rape or incest, wanting to *save* ectopic pregnancies. Not interested in life at all.

I joked with my brother last week that the GOP has convinced me and now i'm so pro-life, that even if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother, no abortion allowed.  Furthermore, should the mother die giving birth, I want that baby brought up on capital murder charges because it killed it's mom!  No appeals either, fast track that baby right to the electric chair.  While a joke now, we're on pace to that being on Trump's platform in 2 years.

[oblong]

A significant number believe that scenario is God's will and should be supported.... that if she's a Christian she's better off.  

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

A significant number believe that scenario is God's will and should be supported.... that if she's a Christian she's better off.  

The church once said -"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." 

but as we would more commonly render it in English: "Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

[pfife]

Just listening to cspan and Schumer said something about how he authored the Brady Bill....which got me wondering...

Do originalist justices ever just actually.... ask congresspersons what they meant if they're still alive?   

I googled quickly and apparently it's very rare for the House to file an amicus brief.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

Just listening to cspan and Schumer said something about how he authored the Brady Bill....which got me wondering...

Do originalist justices ever just actually.... ask congresspersons what they meant if they're still alive?   

I googled quickly and apparently it's very rare for the House to file an amicus brief.

I don't remember which justice I heard talk about this once, maybe Breyer because I've a few of his lectures - whatever, he was talking about the fact that there is a view that it doesn't matter what Congress meant to do, only what they actually did/wrote.  Breyer (and as I think about it I think it was him) said that the other  view is that it's reasonable and efficient for the court to 'fix' language that is vague or incorrect based on the understanding of Congressional intent, but that the view that that is a proper role of court is not shared by all justices - though he implied without saying directly that he held it. The other side is that while  the congressional record does record what certain lawmakers meant,  in the end the vote was for the language that passed and maybe the people who put their thoughts into the record didn't actually speak for all the votes needed to pass the bill.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[pfife]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't remember which justice I heard talk about this once, maybe Breyer because I've a few of his lectures - whatever, he was talking about the fact that there is a view that it doesn't matter what Congress meant to do, only what they actually did/wrote.  Breyer (and as I think about it I think it was him) said that the other  view is that it's reasonable and efficient for the court to 'fix' language that is vague or incorrect based on the understanding of Congressional intent, but that the view that that is a proper role of court is not shared by all justices - though he implied without saying directly that he held it. The other side is that while  the congressional record does record what certain lawmakers meant,  in the end the vote was for the language that passed and maybe the people who put their thoughts into the record didn't actually speak for all the votes needed to pass the bill.

good stuff, this all resounds with me pretty well.   

I then wonder... ok, what about bills that congresspeople actually didn't author - like a lobbyist group authored it?

[chasfh]

On 5/13/2022 at 6:40 PM, Archie said:

That is a 1000% false statement.  You should do some research because the numbers aren't even close.

LOL!

Ah, Bunker, you were funnier in the 70s, but this one is a hoot!

[chasfh]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:26 PM, oblong said:

Another in the “what is the pro life solution for this?”   This is the reality and the kind of situations are laws are supposed to accommodate.  
 

not the insane “domestic supply of adoption” by the freak ACB. Guess the right wingers are tired of settling for black kids. 

 

Well,  they're going to be very disappointed by the supply they see on the shelf.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by chasfh

[chasfh]

My wife and I are taking a driving trip through the south. While here, we have stayed in downtown hotels in Louisville, Jacksonville, Montgomery, and now Birmingham. Nashville is next.

The thing that has struck me about these downtowns is how ragged and rundown they are. Lots of buildings vacant, hardly anyone on the streets at night, some street lights are out, and people without homes the only ones on the streets after maybe nine o'clock. It's not like that in my city, which is very clean and well-lit and well-trod by people both resident and tourist well into the night.

So what's the difference? Why are things like that in these southern downtowns but not in mine?

I think the original difference is slavery. People think that ended in 1865 and that everyone just did a 180 on it, but we all know that's not true. The south tried to keep de facto slavery going with Jim Crow laws for as long as they could afterwards, finally starting to crack a century later. One of the things that started turning states around on Jim Crow was economics: corporations started refusing to even do business in Jim Crow states, let alone relocate there, until that was finally changed. Economics is what got their attention.

Still, the south is way behind the north in economic development. I looked up which Fortune 5000 companies have their headquarters in Birmingham, which is the #41 market in America. There is not a single company I'd ever heard of, and in fact only four of the top 500 are there. Why is that?

I believe because the legacy of slavery in the south, with its lingering social impact, has hampered economic development in the deep south for generations still to come. Companies relocate to other city downtowns (like Chicago) all the time, but none of them go to deep southern cities, despite the favorable weather and corporate tax advantages, because no company with a highly-educated executive workforce could ever get their people to relocate to Birmingham, Alabama.

And as states like Alabama race to the bottom to punish people for having pregnancies they don't want or otherwise can't handle, they are not only never going to have highly-educated people wanting move there, but they will also experience a brain drain of people who grow up there as these states enact more and worse punishing fascistic laws.

And that's perfectly OK with the evangelical Christians who run politics in the deep south because of the book of Genesis. Always remember that Eve did not tempt Adam with fruit from an apple tree. The story is that she tempted him with fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is knowledge that so many people who run politics in the deep south fear. They fear smart people. They don't want them around. Smart people are too smart for them. Smart people make people who run things in the deep south feel inadequate about themselves.

That's what these retrograde abortion laws (not to mention voting restrictions and open gun laws and all the rest of that) will finally accomplish: they will keep highly-educated smart people from moving there, and they will drive the highly-educated smart people who are still there away as well.

Detractors might point to Atlanta and say see, you're wrong, they're in the deep south and look, they have a thriving economy. To which I would say, all that came when Atlanta tried to be like the north when it came to social and legal protections. Now that Georgia is engaged in a race to the bottom as well, that will eventually change because sooner than later, no one will want to live there anymore, either. I promise you.

 

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

My wife and I are taking a driving trip through the south. While here, we have stayed in downtown hotels in Louisville, Jacksonville, Montgomery, and now Birmingham. Nashville is next.

The thing that has struck me about these downtowns is how ragged and rundown they are. Lots of buildings vacant, hardly anyone on the streets at night, some street lights are out, and people without homes the only ones on the streets after maybe nine o'clock. It's not like that in my city, which is very clean and well-lit and well-trod by people both resident and tourist well into the night.

So what's the difference? Why are things like that in these southern downtowns but not in mine?

I think the original difference is slavery. People think that ended in 1865 and that everyone just did a 180 on it, but we all know that's not true. The south tried to keep de facto slavery going with Jim Crow laws for as long as they could afterwards, finally starting to crack a century later. One of the things that started turning states around on Jim Crow was economics: corporations started refusing to even do business in Jim Crow states, let alone relocate there, until that was finally changed. Economics is what got their attention.

Still, the south is way behind the north in economic development. I looked up which Fortune 5000 companies have their headquarters in Birmingham, which is the #41 market in America. There is not a single company I'd ever heard of, and in fact only four of the top 500 are there. Why is that?

I believe because the legacy of slavery in the south, with its lingering social impact, has hampered economic development in the deep south for generations still to come. Companies relocate to other city downtowns (like Chicago) all the time, but none of them go to deep southern cities, despite the favorable weather and corporate tax advantages, because no company with a highly-educated executive workforce could ever get their people to relocate to Birmingham, Alabama.

And as states like Alabama race to the bottom to punish people for having pregnancies they don't want or otherwise can't handle, they are not only never going to have highly-educated people wanting move there, but they will also experience a brain drain of people who grow up there as these states enact more and worse punishing fascistic laws.

And that's perfectly OK with the evangelical Christians who run politics in the deep south because of the book of Genesis. Always remember that Eve did not tempt Adam with fruit from an apple tree. The story is that she tempted him with fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is knowledge that so many people who run politics in the deep south fear. They fear smart people. They don't want them around. Smart people are too smart for them. Smart people make people who run things in the deep south feel inadequate about themselves.

That's what these retrograde abortion laws (not to mention voting restrictions and open gun laws and all the rest of that) will finally accomplish: they will keep highly-educated smart people from moving there, and they will drive the highly-educated smart people who are still there away as well.

Detractors might point to Atlanta and say see, you're wrong, they're in the deep south and look, they have a thriving economy. To which I would say, all that came when Atlanta tried to be like the north when it came to social and legal protections. Now that Georgia is engaged in a race to the bottom as well, that will eventually change because sooner than later, no one will want to live there anymore, either. I promise you.

 

This is interesting, if you do notice the companies that do move to the south are auto manufacturers because they can pay people lower wages and the south is anti-union. 

I think I would disagree on Atlanta. Atlanta is changing the state. Atlanta is the reason Georgia has two Democratic senators and why there is a chance to have a Democratic governor. The GOP isn't going to go out without a fight and they are desperate because they see the writing on the wall. That's why they are passing voter suppression laws that largely target Atlanta. Don't forget, Virginia used to be a very red former confederate state that has shifted pretty far to the left even though they elected sweater vest. 

 

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

This is interesting, if you do notice the companies that do move to the south are auto manufacturers because they can pay people lower wages and the south is anti-union. 

I think I would disagree on Atlanta. Atlanta is changing the state. Atlanta is the reason Georgia has two Democratic senators and why there is a chance to have a Democratic governor. The GOP isn't going to go out without a fight and they are desperate because they see the writing on the wall. That's why they are passing voter suppression laws that largely target Atlanta. Don't forget, Virginia used to be a very red former confederate state that has shifted pretty far to the left even though they elected sweater vest. 

 

As I mentioned, Atlanta is just beginning their race to the bottom now. Once they get all the same laws just punish just as hard in place, we won’t see practically anyone who’s not a modestly educated Christian wanting to live there anymore.

And if Virginia follows suit, it’ll happen there, too. 

[oblong]

Nashville, from what I hear now, is nothing but a bunch of name branded country music restaurants with rooftop bars and downtown is overrun by bachelorette parties.

I haven't been there since 2013.  if its still open you must go to the Ernest Tubb record shop and do the Ryman Auditorium tour.

 

[Motown Bombers]

I've done a good job avoiding the south. I lived in Tampa once and only drove through the south. I have no desire to return. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

They fear smart people.

this really the key. Maybe because of racism, or maybe just because they are cheap, the South lags economically mostly because it lags educationally (& health wise). Sure, established enterprises with cheap labor needs may move there, but those businesses were created in more economically dynamic areas of country where education produces a more economically dynamic population.

Edited May 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

It's never a coincidence that religion proliferates the poorest areas of the country. Not just the south but look at the north. Go into the poorest areas of Detroit and you find many churches and clergy who are active members in the community government. Some of these churches are also palaces in the middle of much abandoned neighborhoods. 

[CMRivdogs]

28 minutes ago, oblong said:

Nashville, from what I hear now, is nothing but a bunch of name branded country music restaurants with rooftop bars and downtown is overrun by bachelorette parties.

I haven't been there since 2013.  if its still open you must go to the Ernest Tubb record shop and do the Ryman Auditorium tour.

 

I accompanied my wife to a conference there 3 years ago. I managed to avoid the main drag most of the week. Even during the day a lot of the bars and restaurants blared deafening music. I just read recently that Ernest Tubb's is closing. I did enjoy the CMA Museum, and caught a concert at the old Ryman. One little place a couple blocks off the main drag called The Listening Room was my favorite spot. It's an entertainment venue with smaller acts. The night I went they were showcasing a couple of the record labels' song writers.

Away from the tourist area, the city seems very viable. Lots of companies still have offices there and there seemed to be a fair bit of construction.

 

 

[chasfh]

44 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this really the key. Maybe because of racism, or maybe just because they are cheap, the South lags economically mostly because it lags educationally (& health wise). Sure, established enterprises with cheap labor needs may move there, but those businesses were created in more economically dynamic areas of country where education produces a more economically dynamic population.

The continuing educational subordination of the south is a direct result of Jim Crow as well. Remember they spent time and treasure creating parallel systems of everything, particularly education, and even though the second-class system they created for blacks was terrible, punitive and cheap by design, it still cost a lot of taxpayer money to maintain.

This kind of circumstance doesn’t turn around by magic on a dime. Even if they were to … ahem … get religion this morning and commit to achieving first-class public accommodations status on par with the best cities in the north and west, it would still take three or five or maybe even more decades to actually achieve it.

Of course, that’s definitely not the kind of religion those folks down there are interested in getting. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by chasfh

[chasfh]

32 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

It's never a coincidence that religion proliferates the poorest areas of the country. Not just the south but look at the north. Go into the poorest areas of Detroit and you find many churches and clergy who are active members in the community government. Some of these churches are also palaces in the middle of much abandoned neighborhoods. 

Religion is all about the fiction that it is better to delay gratification in this life in order to achieve perfection in the afterlife. That’s how the poor comfort themselves with their circumstances and, not for nothing, why the rich seek to maintain that thinking among the poor to control them and forestall revolution, to the point of enshrining gratification-delaying principles into law and directly citing that very religious thinking as the inspiration for it.

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

As I mentioned, Atlanta is just beginning their race to the bottom now. Once they get all the same laws just punish just as hard in place, we won’t see practically anyone who’s not a modestly educated Christian wanting to live there anymore.

And if Virginia follows suit, it’ll happen there, too. 

You've got a point to a certain extent but in a lot of mid size cities the downfall started back in the 1960s. Cities that once had thriving downtowns saw a lot of their traffic move to the suburbs with the advent of shopping malls. 

Throw the rise and merger of many of the department and speciality stores that dominated the areas, along with loss of major industries. While many cities have tried various solutions nothing seems to stick. I think it goes beyond religion as local churches look like they are aging out..giving way to Mega Churches. Which to me promotes the loss to the feeling of community in favor of corporatism. (I realize I'm broad brushing here)

 

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Religion is all about the fiction that it is better to delay gratification in this life in order to achieve perfection in the afterlife. That’s how the poor comfort themselves with their circumstances and, not for nothing, why the rich seek to maintain that thinking among the poor to control them and forestall revolution, to the point of enshrining gratification-delaying principles into law and directly citing that very religious thinking as the inspiration for it.

That is probably the most cynical view of treligion I have ever heard! 

I don't think religion began with that intention, but there is no doubt that rich expolit it to take advantage of the poor.  

[chasfh]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That is probably the most cynical view of treligion I have ever heard! 

I don't think religion began with that intention, but there is no doubt that rich expolit it to take advantage of the poor.  

I definitely think it started with that intention. I’m not talking about belief in a deity that came from the first caveman wondering how did I get here—I’m talking about Religion, Inc.

Catholic Church comes to mind as one of the OGs of the organized religion scam. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

Not all churches are scams.  Churches are like other businesses.  Some are good.  Some are scams.  

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

You've got a point to a certain extent but in a lot of mid size cities the downfall started back in the 1960s. Cities that once had thriving downtowns saw a lot of their traffic move to the suburbs with the advent of shopping malls. 

Throw the rise and merger of many of the department and speciality stores that dominated the areas, along with loss of major industries. While many cities have tried various solutions nothing seems to stick. I think it goes beyond religion as local churches look like they are aging out..giving way to Mega Churches. Which to me promotes the loss to the feeling of community in favor of corporatism. (I realize I'm broad brushing here)

 

I don’t think the 1960s explains what’s happening in New York or Chicago or Boston or even Atlanta today. Their economic and liveability revolutions all came within the past 30 years. My point was where I think Atlanta will go next if they continue down the path of legislating the evangelical agenda  

But I do agree that the 1960’s started precipitating the rotten core you see in cities like Birmingham today. “And if you ask me, it all started with that commie stooge Martin Luther Coon!!” 😉