Amy Coney Barrett

[Anastasis 23,394]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I qualify that as anyone arguing the Bible is bullshit.  Feel free to provide any proof it isn’t.  I won’t hold my breath, champ.  

So you can't.

 

[formermav43 4,599]

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I qualify that as anyone arguing the Bible is bullshit.  Feel free to provide any proof it isn’t.  I won’t hold my breath, champ.  

Logic, how does it work?

[Anastasis 23,394]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

Logic, how does it work?

[wildcat09 29,258]

Love to be an adult on the internet telling religious people that their faith is illogical.

[formermav43 4,599]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This debate is so fucking stupid.

 

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Love to be an adult on the internet telling religious people that their faith is illogical.

You already pretty well summed this up.

[Texaspython 231]

If Dems are smart they’ll just hammer the unfairness of her nomination and the politicization of the court. She’ll have to agree no matter how much they prepare her.

[Revolution512 1,480]

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding her nomination, is she qualified? Everything I’ve read, including those who disagree on her positions, the answer seems to be yes.
 

If people on the other side disagree with her interpretation of the law yet still think she will do a wonderful job.....that’s a sign to me this person is most definitely qualified. Very little of that going around today. In fact, almost none.

[wildcat09 29,258]

7 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding her nomination, is she qualified? Everything I’ve read, including those who disagree on her positions, the answer seems to be yes.
 

If people on the other side disagree with her interpretation of the law yet still think she will do a wonderful job.....that’s a sign to me this person is most definitely qualified. Very little of that going around today. In fact, almost none.

Lol, what? Who are you talking about here?

[GRHorn 105]

On 9/27/2020 at 7:16 AM, Horn Dog said:

This sounds great and all, but lets be clear.  You want GOP congresses and GOP Presidents to be able to change laws.  You do not want Dem congresses and Dem Presidents to be able to pass laws, and when they do you have no issue with the SC overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.  I know you won’t do it, but it would be really refreshing if you  could just be honest about it.

I’m obviously fine with Dem legislatures and Presidents passing laws if they’re in power. That’s how the government works.

I love the line about the SC “overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.”  You make it sound as if Clarence Thomas et al can set up a makeshift court in the Capitol Rotunda to immediately rip up any bills that are signed into law by President Harris. It’s not how it works. Don’t pass unconstitutional statutes and they won’t be struck down after they’ve being appealed, and worked their way all the way to the top court.

People on the left are so obsessed with the Court because they visualize it as another legislative body, which is not what it’s supposed to be. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

22 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding her nomination, is she qualified? Everything I’ve read, including those who disagree on her positions, the answer seems to be yes.
 

If people on the other side disagree with her interpretation of the law yet still think she will do a wonderful job.....that’s a sign to me this person is most definitely qualified. Very little of that going around today. In fact, almost none.

Opinion piece from Noah Feldman in Bloomberg today...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-26/amy-coney-barrett-deserves-to-be-on-the-supreme-court

 

Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

More from

Trump or Biden May Not Face Such a Terrible Economy in 2021

Amazon’s Pandemic Prime Day Adds to Retailers' Scary October

Few Causes for Optimism in Covid-19’s Toll — Yet

Erdogan Puts Himself in a Bind in Azerbaijan-Armenia Conflict

When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me. Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it.

Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.

Martinez had the special skill of connecting the tangle of complex strands to a sensible statutory purpose. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, who also believes in pragmatically engaging the question of what a statute is actually trying to do in order to interpret it.

In a world where merit counts, Barrett and Martinez would both be recognized as worthy of serving on the Supreme Court. If a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Senate asked me to recommend a current law professor for the bench, Martinez would be on my short list.

But a Republican is president, and the Senate is Republican. Elections have consequences, and so do justices’ decisions about when or whether to retire. Trump is almost certainly going to get his pick confirmed.

Given that reality, it is better for the republic to have a principled, brilliant lawyer on the bench than a weaker candidate. That’s Barrett.

To add to her merits, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person. I never heard her utter a word that wasn’t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects. She will be an ideal colleague. I don’t really believe in “judicial temperament,” because some of the greatest justices were irascible, difficult and mercurial. But if you do believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum, rest assured that Barrett has it.

This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals. Her old boss, Scalia, did not have the ideal judicial temperament (too much personality, a wicked sense of humor) and managed over the years to alienate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which may conceivably have helped produce more liberal outcomes as she moved to the left.

Barrett is also a profoundly conservative thinker and a deeply committed Catholic. What of it? Constitutional interpretation draws on the full resources of the human mind. These beliefs should not be treated as disqualifying.

Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

It would be naïve to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect.

And when she is confirmed, I am going to accept it as the consequence of the constitutional rules we have and the choices we collectively and individually have made. And I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.

[Revolution512 1,480]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, what? Who are you talking about here?

Harvard Law Prof, Noah Feldman gave an interview. Former clerk for Souter.

“I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions,” he wrote of ACB. “Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.”

He went on to say.....

“We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect,” Feldman wrote.

Despite his firm opposition to Barrett’s positions, the professor concluded, “I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.”

[JimmyJames 12,271]

If all it takes to get on the Supreme Court is to be a smart law professor whose students like you after you attended a good law school with a limited judicial record and you are widely expected to be against abortion rights and to overturn Obamacare then yes, she’s qualified based on that criteria. 

[wildcat09 29,258]

There’s basically a whole cottage industry for that type of shit. The people who write that shit don’t mean it, they’re just kissing ass to make sure when their kids are looking for a primo clerkship they’ve got some pull.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Even though she will vote against everything I stand for and believe in I still thinks she’s gonna be a great justice and will support her all the way. 
 

LOL. It’s a good thing that guys gut a cushy job as a Harvard law school professor. The trumps of the world would have repeatedly run over him by now otherwise if he didn’t. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

24 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’m obviously fine with Dem legislatures and Presidents passing laws if they’re in power. That’s how the government works.

I love the line about the SC “overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.”  You make it sound as if Clarence Thomas et al can set up a makeshift court in the Capitol Rotunda to immediately rip up any bills that are signed into law by President Harris. It’s not how it works. Don’t pass unconstitutional statutes and they won’t be struck down after they’ve being appealed, and worked their way all the way to the top court.

People on the left are so obsessed with the Court because they visualize it as another legislative body, which is not what it’s supposed to be. 

I must say you did an excellent job hammering down that strawman. Also excellent projection. Bravo. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

I wonder if she has any embarrassment that this is the way she's getting on Scotus and by this particular pres. I mean, everyone on the court but Thomas and Alito (ok, Kavanaugh) have to have utter contempt for him as a human being right?

Edited September 28, 2020 by ChuckNorrisActionJeans
I guess Gorsuch should have had the real shame

[StruggleBus 3,922]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

No, no one’s body should be used against their will but this is about women so......

If men bore children, abortion would be enshrined in The Constitution between speech and guns.

If men bore children at least PUSH PRESENTS wouldn't fucking exist

[Dahobbs 17,447]

1 hour ago, Revolution512 said:

Harvard Law Prof, Noah Feldman gave an interview. Former clerk for Souter.

“I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions,” he wrote of ACB. “Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.”

He went on to say.....

“We have a Supreme Court nominee who is a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person — and someone who holds views about how to interpret the law that I think are wrong and, in certain respects, misguided. I hope the senators at her hearing treat her with respect,” Feldman wrote.

Despite his firm opposition to Barrett’s positions, the professor concluded, “I’m going to be confident that Barrett is going to be a good justice, maybe even a great one — even if I disagree with her all the way.”

She is barely a lawyer. She hasn't been a member of the profession in any substantial way. I don't think she is qualified. Look at her resume next to every other justice, it is pitiful. Being a law professor at a mid-tier law school should not be the extent of the resume of Supreme Court Justice. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

She is barely a lawyer. She hasn't been a member of the profession in any substantial way. I don't think she is qualified. Look at her resume next to every other justice, it is pitiful. Being a law professor at a mid-tier law school should not be the extent of the resume of Supreme Court Justice. 

Agree with the post with one small exception.  I think ND law is a "top tier" law school.  It's just not one of the elite handful from which justices are usually drawn.

If your basic credential is academia, though, it should probably be at the absolute highest level.  And even then, it would be troubling.

Edited September 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18,661]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Love to be an adult on the internet telling religious people that their faith is illogical.

Or maybe religion is one of many evolutionary tools that the brain uses to survive with the knowledge that annihilation is inescapable.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Opinion piece from Noah Feldman in Bloomberg today.

I am glad I don't have to quote this dude from the failed impeachment to make a point . . .

. . . but I suppose politics make strange bedfellows. 

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

37 nominations have failed:

• 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes,
• 11 were withdrawn by the president, and
• 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.

Nixon's Haynesworth (opposed civil rights) and Carswell (segregationist who opposed women's rights) were rejected by the Senate on ideological grounds. 

Denying the Constitutional Right to Privacy is enough reason to reject ACB. 

[elfenix 34,172]

1 hour ago, StruggleBus said:

If men bore children at least PUSH PRESENTS wouldn't fucking exist

do i even want to ask?

[hayden_horn 11,360]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I’m obviously fine with Dem legislatures and Presidents passing laws if they’re in power. That’s how the government works.

I love the line about the SC “overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.”  You make it sound as if Clarence Thomas et al can set up a makeshift court in the Capitol Rotunda to immediately rip up any bills that are signed into law by President Harris. It’s not how it works. Don’t pass unconstitutional statutes and they won’t be struck down after they’ve being appealed, and worked their way all the way to the top court.

People on the left are so obsessed with the Court because they visualize it as another legislative body, which is not what it’s supposed to be. 

the left is obsessed with the court because the right seems intent on packing it for a generation with crazy people. 

i have gone on record here, i hated scalia's originalist decisions, at least some i didn't, but let's just for the sake of argument say i hated them all.

he was still eminently qualified and had a massive legal mind. just a great man.

my opinion of this person is a big shrug. i have no idea if she will judge against roe or not. i'm not sure i even care, to be honest. roe has been dangled by the right for forty fucking years as this huge bugbear. catholics are all pro-life. that doesn't mean that they think it should be the law of the land. it is possible to separate faith from legal opinion, even if legal opinion is linked to faith. 

you want to disqualify her on her faith, then you better show some evidence that she unfairly uses it in her decision making to go against precedent, and you'll need many examples. 

otherwise, this discussion is futile, and really, none of it matters, because the tax-cheat in office is going to get her on the fucking court. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I am glad I don't have to quote this dude from the failed impeachment to make a point . . .

. . . but I suppose politics make strange bedfellows. 

What a strange deflection.  Be best wash. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Just now, Anastasis said:

What a strange deflection.  Be best wash. 

Can you think of any reason why failed impeachment expert might suck up to a potential Supreme Court Justice?  

Let me help you - he is talking up his book of business. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

36 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the left is obsessed with the court because the right seems intent on packing it for a generation with crazy people. 

i have gone on record here, i hated scalia's originalist decisions, at least some i didn't, but let's just for the sake of argument say i hated them all.

he was still eminently qualified and had a massive legal mind. just a great man.

my opinion of this person is a big shrug. i have no idea if she will judge against roe or not. i'm not sure i even care, to be honest. roe has been dangled by the right for forty fucking years as this huge bugbear. catholics are all pro-life. that doesn't mean that they think it should be the law of the land. it is possible to separate faith from legal opinion, even if legal opinion is linked to faith. 

you want to disqualify her on her faith, then you better show some evidence that she unfairly uses it in her decision making to go against precedent, and you'll need many examples. 

otherwise, this discussion is futile, and really, none of it matters, because the tax-cheat in office is going to get her on the fucking court. 

Good post.

The Court has been majority Catholic for 35 years, I believe, since 1985.  That's a strange fact in and of itself.

But, Catholics aren't monolithic even if Catholicism is anti-abortion.

A variety of things make me uneasy about Amy Coney Barrett, but Catholicism alone is not one of those things.

[wildcat09 29,258]

54 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

37 nominations have failed:

• 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes,
• 11 were withdrawn by the president, and
• 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.

Nixon's Haynesworth (opposed civil rights) and Carswell (segregationist who opposed women's rights) were rejected by the Senate on ideological grounds. 

Denying the Constitutional Right to Privacy is enough reason to reject ACB. 

Thinking Brown v. Board was wrongly decided should be enough, too. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

2 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I wonder if she has any embarrassment that this is the way she's getting on Scotus and by this particular pres. I mean, everyone on the court but Thomas and Alito (ok, Kavanaugh) have to have utter contempt for him as a human being right?

That's an interesting question.

Some seem to assume that a Justice is permanently and deeply indebted to the President who nominates them.

I think the lifetime appointment changes the dynamics there from other political appointments.

Also, most of these guys/gals were on the 'short list" and were likely nominees by any conservative President.  That fact probably prods their ego into diminishing the role the actual appointing President has in the process.

Thomas is nuts and probably does actually like Trump because he sees him as unfairly maligned, like himself.  Alito is just a party hack willing to look away from Trump's grotesque malfeasance like a bunch of others in the GOP.

And, at some point you'd have to think that even the conservative justices tire of the bullshit Trump constantly puts on their plate.  They're probably thinking something like "Dammit, if I have to put my legacy on the line, let me do it on an abortion case, not your immigration or census or wall bullshit."

Edited September 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Thinking Brown v. Board was wrongly decided should be enough, too. 

Does anyone actually think that beyond the remedy part?

[Dahobbs 17,447]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agree with the post with one small exception.  I think ND law is a "top tier" law school.  It's just not one of the elite handful from which justices are usually drawn.

If your basic credential is academia, though, it should probably be at the absolute highest level.  And even then, it would be troubling.

Well, let's just say it is low enough in that top tier that there are a significant number of schools I would choose over it even if offered a full-ride to Notre Dame. It isn't a bad school by any means, and I don't mean to suggest that. But, as you say, if you're sole qualification for the Supreme Court is academia, it better be the crème de la crème.

[workswithseed 2,037]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good post.

The Court has been majority Catholic for 35 years, I believe, since 1985.  That's a strange fact in and of itself.

But, Catholics aren't monolithic even if Catholicism is anti-abortion.

A variety of things make me uneasy about Amy Coney Barrett, but Catholicism alone is not one of those things.

Robert Barnes called her authoritarian. 

[Orale 1,087]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good post.

The Court has been majority Catholic for 35 years, I believe, since 1985.  That's a strange fact in and of itself.

But, Catholics aren't monolithic even if Catholicism is anti-abortion.

A variety of things make me uneasy about Amy Coney Barrett, but Catholicism alone is not one of those things.

Agreed. Though I haven't seen any comments from leading Democrats about her faith. I've only seen negative views about how she'll likely overturn Obamacare (and Roe) and imperil the healthcare of millions of citizens, and that's fair game. 

[Dahobbs 17,447]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, let's just say it is low enough in that top tier that there are a significant number of schools I would choose over it even if offered a full-ride to Notre Dame. It isn't a bad school by any means, and I don't mean to suggest that. But, as you say, if you're sole qualification for the Supreme Court is academia, it better be the crème de la crème.

eek, "your sole" - mea culpa. 

[NWBuck 8,548]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

eek, "your sole" - mea culpa. 

"O sole mio" culpa?

[Neonmoon 38,127]

On 9/26/2020 at 7:50 PM, Anastasis said:

We know that you are not capable of articulating anything persuasive, but posters like wash know that there is a vein of libertarian pro-life perspective rooted in the non-aggression principle. Me personally, I think that the government needs to stay out of the issue generally. It is not a legal ruling or government mandate that will have a substantive impact, rather it is a society and culture that rejects barbarism and values every human being that will move the needle. Abortion is used as a wedge political issue to manipulate people. The issue need to be divorced from politics, imo.  Politicians just spin the wheels. 

 

On 9/26/2020 at 8:09 PM, Anastasis said:

What problem. The science and biology are clear. It is the politicians and the people like you dissembling on the science that are unconquered. 

I am not really interested in an(other) abortion argument, but some of you will not be denied your precious. 

 

On 9/26/2020 at 8:44 PM, Anastasis said:

Chopping up a fetus and vacuuming it out of a uterus isn't at it's core a privacy issue imo.  

I think that we agree that the government should not be involved in this. 

I would hope that we could agree that a modern society should not normalize such barbarism. 

 

 

On 9/26/2020 at 8:50 PM, Anastasis said:

See I agree with this. I also think that there is an opportunity to address the significant number of abortions (~20-30% IIRC) that are women on their 3+ go with it. I don't think that any well intended person thinks that such a situation is healthy or reflects a morality that they want to be associated with. 

 

@Anastasis you stated that a legal ruling would not have a substantive impact, but only a society that rejects barbarism. How can you possibly believe striking down Roe v Wade won’t have a substantial impact? 
 

You seem to believe that a fetus is a human being, is that correct? Upon conception that a fetus is a person?

[Anastasis 23,394]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

@Anastasis you stated that a legal ruling would not have a substantive impact, but only a society that rejects barbarism. How can you possibly believe striking down Roe v Wade won’t have a substantial impact? 
 

You seem to believe that a fetus is a human being, is that correct? Upon conception that a fetus is a person?

As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on. 

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates 

 

39 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You seem to believe that a fetus is a human being, is that correct? Upon conception that a fetus is a person?

Yes, a fetus is a living human being.  It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba. "Person" is a philosophical term. I was told this discussion should focus on facts and science. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2020/09/32-law-professors-weigh-in-on-amy-coney-barretts-nomination.html

A smörgåsbord of law professor editorials on Coney Barrett's nomination in the link above for anyone interested. 

 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on. 

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates 

 

Yes, a fetus is a living human being.  It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba. "Person" is a philosophical term. I was told this discussion should focus on facts and science. 

Thank you for the substantive response. Sometimes it is hard to piece together a person’s point of view in little snippets. 

[troph 24,563]

I’m obviously fine with Dem legislatures and Presidents passing laws if they’re in power. That’s how the government works.
I love the line about the SC “overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.”  You make it sound as if Clarence Thomas et al can set up a makeshift court in the Capitol Rotunda to immediately rip up any bills that are signed into law by President Harris. It’s not how it works. Don’t pass unconstitutional statutes and they won’t be struck down after they’ve being appealed, and worked their way all the way to the top court.
People on the left are so obsessed with the Court because they visualize it as another legislative body, which is not what it’s supposed to be. 

Some of us are “obsessed” with the court because one side believes equality for all - which is an essential concept in our constitution is an attack on them, because that one side believes they are in a culture war against us - also Americans - and that one side thinks we will take something away from them by having equality. There is NOTHING more hollow than someone like you acting like it’s no big deal. For some of us it’s our very right to exist.

[workswithseed 2,037]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest.

The number of times abortion because of those two happens so little that it's barely a problem. I have gone back and forth on how I felt on it, but legally I can understand.

[elfenix 34,172]

11 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I’m obviously fine with Dem legislatures and Presidents passing laws if they’re in power. That’s how the government works.

I love the line about the SC “overturning those laws on whatever flimsy grounds they can muster.”  You make it sound as if Clarence Thomas et al can set up a makeshift court in the Capitol Rotunda to immediately rip up any bills that are signed into law by President Harris. It’s not how it works. Don’t pass unconstitutional statutes and they won’t be struck down after they’ve being appealed, and worked their way all the way to the top court.

People on the left are so obsessed with the Court because they visualize it as another legislative body, which is not what it’s supposed to be. 

people on the right are obssesed with the court because they realize it's a way to extend a dead hand of minority rule for decades to come.

[troph 24,563]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on. 

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates 

 

 

I know very few progressives who would disagree with this.  On the politics of abortion, any supposed political solution or even the philosophical question of personhood sure, but on the idea that we should focus on practical solutions to unwanted pregnancy or supporting women facing decisions that we would never want to be faced with ourselves - we can all agree.  
 

but then there we run into problems again.  Real sex education that teaches pregnancy prevention Is known to work, yet we can’t teach that in public schools.  
 

then we run into problems with states refusing to expand Medicaid and cutting their own budgets for the poor making the prospects of having kids for some women a choice between poverty and abortion. 
 

these decisions are unfortunately made by the very politicians that are anti abortion, aka pro life. 
 

I get you man I really do but we live in a practical world and if you want to reduce abortions and acknowledge political solutions at the Court won’t do it then we have to look the hypocrisy in the eye and call it out. 
 

the blood of the unborn is much, much more on the hands of the conservatives in state houses, conservatives on the boards of education and the governors of red states that refuse to do the things that would actually help to reduce abortions. 

[Macanudo 12,928]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does anyone actually think that beyond the remedy part?

Uh, a more than significant number of Trump supporters.

[alincoln 2,364]

9 hours ago, troph said:

the blood of the unborn is much, much more on the hands of the conservatives in state houses, conservatives on the boards of education and the governors of red states that refuse to do the things that would actually help to reduce abortions. 

R politicians have little influence over drunk fucking by the unwed, the predominant cause of abortions. 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on. 

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates 

 

Yes, a fetus is a living human being.  It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba. "Person" is a philosophical term. I was told this discussion should focus on facts and science. 

 

10 hours ago, troph said:

I know very few progressives who would disagree with this.  On the politics of abortion, any supposed political solution or even the philosophical question of personhood sure, but on the idea that we should focus on practical solutions to unwanted pregnancy or supporting women facing decisions that we would never want to be faced with ourselves - we can all agree.  
 

but then there we run into problems again.  Real sex education that teaches pregnancy prevention Is known to work, yet we can’t teach that in public schools.  
 

then we run into problems with states refusing to expand Medicaid and cutting their own budgets for the poor making the prospects of having kids for some women a choice between poverty and abortion. 
 

these decisions are unfortunately made by the very politicians that are anti abortion, aka pro life. 
 

I get you man I really do but we live in a practical world and if you want to reduce abortions and acknowledge political solutions at the Court won’t do it then we have to look the hypocrisy in the eye and call it out. 
 

the blood of the unborn is much, much more on the hands of the conservatives in state houses, conservatives on the boards of education and the governors of red states that refuse to do the things that would actually help to reduce abortions. 

People were actually having a good substantive discussion about the deeper issues involved, from abuse of current policies to the underfunding of programs that could help reduce the abuse of policies 

And then

22 minutes ago, alincoln said:

R politicians have little influence over drunk fucking by the unwed, the predominant cause of abortions. 

Diarrhea 

[Horn Dog 9,674]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on. 

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates 

 

Yes, a fetus is a living human being.  It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba. "Person" is a philosophical term. I was told this discussion should focus on facts and science. 

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with you on this.  No one is really "pro-abortion" and actually want to promote its use.  Everyone I have ever talked to about the issue wants to minimize it's utilization as much as possible but have it available when absolutely needed to prevent death, injury or extreme harm to the mother as she determines.  As others have pointed out, reducing the use of abortion involves supporting birth control, education, and other social economic polices to give people in vulnerable situations a way out.  That is routinely rejected by one side of the spectrum.

Also, I am a bit confused by your distinction of "human being" from "human person".  I understand not wanting to get into it, but that really is the issue from a legal point of view isn't it?  Of course human tissue is "human"... as is human sperm  and human stem cells but we don't assign human tissue inalienable rights, otherwise masturbation would be punishable by millions of counts of murder each pop.  The only way the SC could rule RVW unconstitutional is to argue that a fetus is a "human person" with inherent rights afforded via the constitution. Thus although it may very well be "philosophical", its a pretty important legal distinction.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.

Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue.  But of course that is not how our current political system operates

Agreed.

Quote

Yes, a fetus is a living human being. 

Not so fast, my friend. In what sense is a <13 week old fetus "living"?

(Viability is generally put around 24 weeks.) (I choose <13 because that's when 90+% of abortions happen.)

Quote

It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba.

The philosophical place of the fetus is undetermined and has been for all of recorded human history. That should be pretty instructive as to what it means to be "a human" and whether or not the fetus fits into that category.

Much like the religious do with faith, we should embrace the mystery instead of forcing answers that don't work.

[Horn Dog 9,674]

Exactly.  And since conservatives what judges who rely on an exclusive "originist doctrine" that states we must interpret the constitution as the founding fathers EXACTLY wrote and understood it, well lets see what those same founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Interpreted literally from a originist perspective, "MEN" (not "human potential life" or "human tissue" and arguably not even women or children) are entitled to Life.    So basically the whole "right to life" argument fails in this context.  But of course....we are not going to take an "orginist"  prospective on this one right?

Edited September 29, 2020 by Horn Dog

[Anastasis 23,394]

2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Also, I am a bit confused by your distinction of "human being" from "human person".  I understand not wanting to get into it, but that really is the issue from a legal point of view isn't it?  Of course human tissue is "human"... as is human sperm  and human stem cells but we don't assign human tissue inalienable rights, otherwise masturbation would be punishable by millions of counts of murder each pop.  The only way the SC could rule RVW unconstitutional is to argue that a fetus is a "human person" with inherent rights afforded via the constitution. Thus although it may very well be "philosophical", its a pretty important legal distinction.

A fetus is a living multicell differentiated organism with a genetic makeup consistent with what we have classified as human. "Person hood" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. I will grant you that it is also used as a legal term. One of the knowledgeable lawyers here can probably outline the history of that term from a legal perspective, and its use for example to deny certain sets of humans their humanity, as a mechanism to justify things like slavery. A human sperm is a human gamete consisting of an expression of 23 chromosomes, one-half of the genetic material consistent with the diploid human genetic profile.  Analogy to a fetus or even a zygote is not appropriate imo.  A stem cell is a pluri-or multi-ponent cell extracted in a destructive process, at least in the case of embryonic and fetal stem cells, from an early embryo which contains the full suite of human genetic information.  A stem cell is one of the "products" possible to harvest when you destroy an embryo.  Clearly there are meaningful biological, and I would argue ethical, differences between a sperm, a stem cell harvested from a destroyed embryo, and a embryo or a fetus.