Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
    Except I'm pro-choice and don't have strong feelings either way.
    Then it's a bit ironic that you are parroting a rightwing narrative so flimsy even NRO has admitted it's bogus.

    But if you are pro-choice, you should have learned this:

    I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” -- MLK, Letters from a Birmingham Jail
    tl; dr: If you believe in a right then fight the people who are obstructing it. It's really that simple.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
      I have not, it's over 100 pages and abortion isn't something I have a ton of interest in.

      The Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does. Does this law fall create a conflict with restricting abortion? You could make that argument based on some clinics closing, but it is flimsy at best.
      Do you understand the concept of a pretext? As in the legislature puts forth a fake reason to try to get their real agenda through the courts? Because that was as blatant an attempt as there ever was.

      Texas said it was for women's health, then (among other bullshiat answers) told people on the New Mexico border they could go across the state line to get an abortion over there, even though New Mexico did not have the new standards and it would have been 'unsafe' under Texas' own guidance.
      Last edited by unofan; 02-01-2017, 01:52 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
        If you have no time to read I have no time to explain it to me. Suffice to say the poor were trampled on in that ruling in a big way.
        Well, not really since Kennedy sided with the liberals and struck down an abortion restriction for the first time ever. But it was closer than it should've been, because only morons couldn't have read between the lines on that one.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          Nope. This was transparently a law designed to obstruct women from exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The Texas legislature has no right to do so.

          Try to expand your horizons a little beyond RedState and Townhall. You might learn something.
          I don't read either of those.

          I would ask you this then. Do state legislatures have the right to pass gun control legislation? A lot of the laws proposed and passed have nothing to do with public safety. There are hardly any people killed with 'assault rifles.' Wouldn't a bad on those run afoul of the constitution using your logic?
          Originally posted by BobbyBrady
          Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
            It's been a conservative court for near 50 years.
            Courts are generally supposed to be conservative, in the lowercase "c" sense, no? We want existing laws to be upheld consistently across all forums and venues. That is what "the rule of law" is all about. If judges are willy-nilly going to replace logical reasoning with impulsive emoting, that would be a step backward, no?
            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
              I don't read either of those.

              I would ask you this then. Do state legislatures have the right to pass gun control legislation? A lot of the laws proposed and passed have nothing to do with public safety. There are hardly any people killed with 'assault rifles.' Wouldn't a bad on those run afoul of the constitution using your logic?
              No, because you can still own guns.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                I don't read either of those.
                Good. I go to them every few months to see if they've gotten any smarter, or at least more honest.

                They haven't.

                I would ask you this then. Do state legislatures have the right to pass gun control legislation? A lot of the laws proposed and passed have nothing to do with public safety. There are hardly any people killed with 'assault rifles.' Wouldn't a bad on those run afoul of the constitution using your logic?
                I think that is a solid comparison, and I will amend my statement that suggests choice is any more an absolute right than say gun ownership.

                The two instances do differ, however. On abortion, the rulings in Roe and Casey affirm the right specifically. On personal gun ownership, this had not been the case until the Court created a right out of nothing in Heller. Prior to that, in the history of the Court there were only broad rulings tied to the Militia clause which the NRA agenda ignores. The Casey decision tree is long and rooted in the general underlying privacy without which no other right exists. The Heller decision tree doesn't exist. It sprung fully formed from the head of Scalia-Zeus.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by joecct View Post
                  if RvW is sent back to the states, how much actually changes? There is a majority of support for abortion, but a majority of support for restrictions. That's the likely outcome.
                  it's been said that they got the right "answer" but failed abysmally in (a) the actual "reasoning" (even supporters of R v W think that the opinion was not well-thought out nor well-written), and (b) they short-circuited the political process that would have put an end to the debates once and for all.

                  SCOTUS did not really "legalize" gay marriage, they merely noted that most states had already done so and decided to make it uniform across the US. The political process drove the acceptance of gay marriage, and SCOTUS was merely playing catch-up.

                  For abortion, the political process would eventually have resulted in a consensus that early-term terminations were fine, late-term terminations were not, and mid-term terminations were complicated that involved case-by-case decisions. But we would not be arguing about it any more because it would have been decided by the People through their legislatures. By depriving everyone of a chance to debate and vote, SCOTUS did not "solve" the issue at all; while if they had merely said "abortion wasn't something the Founders contemplated, there is no clear guidance one way or the other, so legislatures better get with it to admit the obvious" we'd be spared four decades of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
                  "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                  "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                  "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                  "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                    For abortion, the political process would eventually have resulted in a consensus that early-term terminations were fine, late-term terminations were not, and mid-term terminations were complicated that involved case-by-case decisions. But we would not be arguing about it any more because it would have been decided by the People through their legislatures. By depriving everyone of a chance to debate and vote, SCOTUS did not "solve" the issue at all; while if they had merely said "abortion wasn't something the Founders contemplated, there is no clear guidance one way or the other, so legislatures better get with it to admit the obvious" we'd be spared four decades of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
                    There some truth to this (which I find surprising). Roe was badly reasoned -- the right should never have been privacy between doctor and patient, but 14th amendment equal protection for the woman. Liberal scholars have agreed on this practically since the ink was still wet on the decision.

                    Certainly though we need to acknowledge that there are cases in which what's right is right, whatever the majority thinks. Brown was handed down despite deep and bitter social resistance, and in fact we can see that the racism behind that resistance lives on even 60 years later.

                    Was Roe that kind of decision? I would think the guarantee of a fundamental right to more than half of the citizens of the country is. Certainly Roe was a political godsend for the right, particularly the far right which was able to infect mainstream Republican politics using "pro-life" as their injection mechanism. So for all practical and pragmatic political purposes Roe was a disaster for the country generally and for the Republican party specifically.

                    But the protection of the rights of our citizens is more important than politics.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      If Minnesota implemented a billion percent tax on guns, would you have a problem with that? What if the Feds put a million dollar application fee for every gun?
                      Code:
                      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                      Originally posted by SanTropez
                      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                      Originally posted by Kepler
                      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                      Comment


                      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        There some truth to this (which I find surprising). Roe was badly reasoned -- the right should never have been privacy between doctor and patient, but 14th amendment equal protection for the woman. Liberal scholars have agreed on this practically since the ink was still wet on the decision.
                        Kep, I don't believe the decision was founded upon a right of privacy between doctor and patient. It was founded upon a zone of privacy each person has against government intrusion. That is a simplistic description but a fair one, I think.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Writing in The New York Times, former Obama official [Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal] says that if the Senate confirms anyone for the seat, Gorsuch “should be at the top of the list.” Though they’re on opposite political sides, Katyal says Gorsuch “brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.” Moreover, “Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law” and “not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.”
                          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/o...such.html?_r=0
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Editorials like this are why liberals always lose.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              the protection of the rights of our citizens is more important than politics.
                              ah, but then who defines what our "rights" are then?

                              We have a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, one of which explicitly says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That one seems to have been misplaced lately, though

                              Anyway, there is no "right" to anything tangible: no "right" to be fed, no "right" to be housed, etc. in the Constitution. In fact, we explicitly have an amendment that forbids these things being "rights" ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"): I think any decent person would agree that we have a moral duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless: there is no debate about that at all. What is debatable would be whether the government, by doing so, would be "establishing a religion": the moral duty is that of the person doing the providing, and is not a "right" of the person receiving the assistance.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                                Editorials like this are why liberals always lose.

                                and here I thought, several posts back, you were saying liberals eventually always win as justices become more liberal as they age....
                                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X