Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 5:34 AM, FondrenRoad said:

Texas is in a civil war by itself. And Texas is Texas. The Northeast and the west coast don't need the south or Midwest anymore. Time to cut em loose. 4 or 5 different countries. A few of them join with Canada in an EU type arrangement. The Midwest will flip quick and join that arrangement too. The south needs to try Christian taliban rule and see how bad it is or they will never give up on the idea. We can let them do it on their own for 20 years or let them drag us down for another 100 years. 

The biggest mistake the north made after the civil war was taking the south back. They should have done what we did in Japan. Enforce your way, make them create a new constitution and ban slavery, but never make them be part of the USA again. They still don't want to be. 

Expand  

This is Handmaid’s Tale. 

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 11:54 AM, Pam Cummings said:

I'd get one.

 

Seriously, fuck these pieces of shit. Using fringe issues like guns and abortion to get dumb people to vote against their best interests. 

 

 

Expand  

Democrats: We want to introduce economic ideas that would pull people out of poverty, resulting in less unplanned/unwanted pregnancies or resorting to using guns to make ends meet.

Republicans: DADJKH FJH DJDKHDUHUHKJAHD JKAGG JAHJHJHJKD HADH GUNS! GAYS! ABORTION!!!! JESUS!!!!!!

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 12:27 PM, Js1 said:

Democrats: We want to introduce economic ideas that would pull people out of poverty, resulting in less unplanned/unwanted pregnancies or resorting to using guns to make ends meet.

Republicans: DADJKH FJH DJDKHDUHUHKJAHD JKAGG JAHJHJHJKD HADH GUNS! GAYS! ABORTION!!!! JESUS!!!!!!

Expand  

Virginia's abortion law: kill even after birth

Democrats: that's fine with me, that's the woman's right to kill already born baby.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 12:46 PM, Chuckie Finster said:

Serious question: as a country, how are we supposed to solve any of these issues when half of the people spout nonsense like this?  We're too far gone.

Expand  

What nonsense ?  Have you heard Va. Gov. Northams quote regarding the issue ?

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 12:51 PM, workswithseed said:

Okay, tell me how his wasn't any more nonsensical than mine. My team my team!

Expand  

"My team my team!" is the whole reason Northam's comments were even news.  Disingenuous hacks jumped on them and misconstrued them to the masses to spark outrage.  One page ago, you said that you would support abortion if the mother's life was in danger.. and that is the EXACT same position that the Virginia bill takes.  But instead we get the same, tired bullshit image of Democrats running through maternity wards chopping babies' heads off.

“No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” Yheskel said. “Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions.”

  • Like 9
Posted

Roberts is very unlikely to overturn Roe, and I'm not 100% convinced Kavanaugh would either.  (on a quick side note, Kavanaugh with his recent Apple ruling with the four liberal justices is possibly kind of a big deal for corporate/antitrust law and he may be more left than Kennedy on this specific issue)

The Roberts Court - if they did this - would historically be completely dominated with this narrative and I highly doubt Roberts wants that as the defining moment of his jurisprudence/legacy.  I believe he cherishes and believes in the Supreme Court as an institution above any single issue, and would act accordingly.  That's not to say they won't chip away at it though... 

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:18 PM, UTDD said:

Roberts is very unlikely to overturn Roe, and I'm not 100% convinced Kavanaugh would either.  (on a quick side note, Kavanaugh with his recent Apple ruling with the four liberal justices is possibly kind of a big deal for corporate/antitrust law and he may be more left than Kennedy on this specific issue)

The Roberts Court - if they did this - would historically be completely dominated with this narrative and I highly doubt Roberts wants that as the defining moment of his jurisprudence/legacy.  I believe he cherishes and believes in the Supreme Court as an institution above any single issue, and would act accordingly.  That's not to say they won't chip away at it though... 

Expand  

Robert's reinstated Korematsu last term (while pretending to overturn it). He decided the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because racism was over.  Anyone who is optimistic that Roberts suddenly becoming a reasonable moderate is completely mistaken.  He might try to be the tiniest bit subtle about it, and he might not do it all in one case, but he's absolutely going to functionally murder Roe and Casey.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:23 PM, wildcat09 said:

Robert's reinstated Korematsu last term (while pretending to overturn it). He decided the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because racism was over.  Anyone who is optimistic that Roberts suddenly becoming a reasonable moderate is completely mistaken.  He might try to be the tiniest bit subtle about it, and he might not do it all in one case, but he's absolutely going to functionally murder Roe and Casey.

Expand  

Korematsu and the Voting Rights Act are not Roe.  Especially on public awareness/societal impact.  Barely anyone cares about Korematsu (they should but they don't) and the Voting Rights Act is just not important enough to most average Americans.  (again, they should but a lot of people don't care)  Roe is a very big difference.  Especially in public awareness and the pure emotional/societal impact such a decision would have right away.  In literally an hour, it would be the hot topic across America and probably worldwide too while the prior issue barely caused a ripple.  Roberts voting not to overturn Roe has nothing to do with him being a reasonable moderate but about his specific vote on one specific case/issue not related to many other conservative/liberal constitutional issues.  But I guess we'll see.  

Edited by UTDD
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 5:18 AM, TwiceHorn said:

The reason I responded to your post is that it's an issue we can debate or discuss on reasonable terms unlike most other aspects of the abortion debate. I am pro-choice. A little bit reluctantly I guess as the whole thing makes me uneasy. But I am sick to death of conservatards legislating this shit over and over again for the last half century. I suppose it's the only way to get it to the Supreme Court again but I hate it so much. It started my now complete break with the GOP years ago. 

Expand  

This is exactly where I stand. I wish their weren't abortions, but my "wishes" shouldn't be legislated because they aren't practical.

As someone in the legal field, do you believe that SCOTUS will kick all of these cases to the curb? Seems like they need to address the broader question of State vs. Federal laws.

Is their a solution? Should/would the Court limit abortions to a certain date (2nd trimester)? 

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:29 PM, UTDD said:

Korematsu and the Voting Rights Act are not Roe.  Especially on public awareness/societal impact.  Barely anyone cares about Korematsu (they should but they don't) and the Voting Rights Act is just not important enough to most average Americans.  (again, they should but a lot of people don't care)  Roe is a very big difference.  Especially in public awareness and the pure emotional/societal impact such a decision would have right away.  In literally an hour, it would be the hot topic across America and probably worldwide too while the prior issue barely caused a ripple.  Roberts voting not to overturn Roe has nothing to do with him being a reasonable moderate but about his specific vote on one specific case/issue not related to many other conservative/liberal constitutional issues.  But I guess we'll see.  

Expand  

He can murder Roe without explicitly overturning it and that's what he'll do.

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:38 PM, wildcat09 said:

He can murder Roe without explicitly overturning it and that's what he'll do.

Expand  

I think it will be further eroded but I probably predict a much smaller spectrum of change than you do in abortion/privacy jurisprudence long-term.  I guess we shall see.

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:38 PM, wildcat09 said:

He can murder Roe without explicitly overturning it and that's what he'll do.

Expand  

Heard an argument that more than likely the SC would probably take up some case like the admitting privileges one that would effectively ban abortion like Texas did where there are only maybe a couple of places you could legally seek one in each state.

Posted

On the Virginia thing, the Governor was obviously referring to situations like this (long interview spoilered below - apologies if not done correctly). No one is getting a 3rd trimester abortion as a lark. They almost always really want the baby.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 11:19 AM, Slade said:

Alabama:
2nd in gun violence
46th in health care
50th in education 
45th in opportunity for residents
45th in crimes and corrections
2nd in infant mortality rates
No family or maternal leave laws in the state
Half of the state's 67 counties have no obstetrician
5th highest child poverty rate in the country 

You call that pro-life? Hah!

 

No one likes abortion, everyone would rather prevent unwanted pregnancies. The problem is the conservative and Republican policy of ignorance. Want to lower unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates? Stop standing in the way of access to birth control, sex education and healthcare. Abstinence is not and will never be an effective policy.

Expand  
  • Texas isn't paradise though either
     
     
    Health Care
     
  • #34
     
    Education
     
  • #15
     
    Economy
     
  • #33
     
    Infrastructure
     
  • #39
     
    Opportunity
     
  • #12
     
    Fiscal Stability
     
  • #33
     
    Crime & Corrections
     
  • #40
     
    Natural Environment
Posted (edited)
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:32 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

This is exactly where I stand. I wish their weren't abortions, but my "wishes" shouldn't be legislated because they aren't practical.

As someone in the legal field, do you believe that SCOTUS will kick all of these cases to the curb? Seems like they need to address the broader question of State vs. Federal laws.

Is their a solution? Should/would the Court limit abortions to a certain date (2nd trimester)? 

Expand  

I don't know.  The issue and the court(s) have become so politicized, I don't know how a case might come out.  I am not one to contend that judges/justices put aside their personal biases in their rulings, but the law does have some tendency to neutralize them or make them less a factor.  Thomas is the main justice that has almost zero respect for stare decisis and he can occasionally attract a majority, but I'm not sure this court is any more likely to join Thomas than prior versions.  Everyone assumes that Gorsuch and Kavanagh would be in such a majority, but I'm not sure that's true.

The thing that "federalizes" abortion is the right to privacy, which, while controversial in 1973, is pretty much no longer debatable.  I'm as big a federalism nut as they come (but more in commercial, regulatory, and criminal contexts than civil rights), and I don't have a problem with the right of privacy.  So I don't think any big state/federal adjustment is the key to undoing Roe.  **Edit:  I also think that these are the kinds of issues that make "past performance" a less likely indicator of future behavior.  These things can cause seismic shifts in the views of one or more previously "reliable" conservative judges.  Maybe even a liberal or two.

The lynchpin of Roe is that the right of privacy makes the right to reproductive autonomy a "fundamental right," which requires a compelling state interest to infringe and a narrowly tailored, least restrictive infringement.  Because of the state of fetal viability science in 73, it was generally agreed that first trimester fetuses could not survive outside the womb, so the state could demonstrate no compelling interest in regulating such fetuses until after the first trimester, when viability was more certain.  The current state of science might move that date.  I don't keep up with that, because generally the abortion debate makes me shut down.

One thing I will note.  It seems like many of these ostensible "test case" statutes, like Alabama's, are so ham-fisted that they aren't terribly likely to draw a grant of certiorari.  It could probably be done by a sophisticated effort to whittle at Roe, but most of these things are both barrels of a 10 ga goofball shotgun (I really wanted to say "retard" instead of goofball, but am trying to be better).

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 5
Posted

Why Rs insist on continuing to make this an issue is beyond me. 

(I get the sell out to evangelicals) but you’d think someone with some modicum of political savvy would stop this stupidity. 

Wonder if you’ll see sports teams join in on protests?

UT canceling games vs Bama/Georgia eg

Posted (edited)
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:18 PM, UTDD said:

Roberts is very unlikely to overturn Roe, and I'm not 100% convinced Kavanaugh would either.  (on a quick side note, Kavanaugh with his recent Apple ruling with the four liberal justices is possibly kind of a big deal for corporate/antitrust law and he may be more left than Kennedy on this specific issue)

The Roberts Court - if they did this - would historically be completely dominated with this narrative and I highly doubt Roberts wants that as the defining moment of his jurisprudence/legacy.  I believe he cherishes and believes in the Supreme Court as an institution above any single issue, and would act accordingly.  That's not to say they won't chip away at it though... 

Expand  

Agree.  Roberts won't do it I think for the same reasons you said.  There is too much of a public awareness of the issue to ban it, and even too much to give a wink-wink non-ban ruling.  I think the Korematsu argument is a good point, but I still see this as different.

  On 5/16/2019 at 2:01 PM, NowThis said:
  • Texas isn't paradise though either
     
     
    Health Care
     
  • #34
     
    Education
     
  • #15
     
    Economy
     
  • #33
     
    Infrastructure
     
  • #39
     
    Opportunity
     
  • #12
     
    Fiscal Stability
     
  • #33
     
    Crime & Corrections
     
  • #40
     
    Natural Environment
Expand  

You can look at the 1000s of people moving here from the rest of the country every day  (3 in for every 2 out) to see how to interpret that data.

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:11 PM, BrazilHorn said:

Why Rs insist on continuing to make this an issue is beyond me. 

(I get the sell out to evangelicals) but you’d think someone with some modicum of political savvy would stop this stupidity. 

Wonder if you’ll see sports teams join in on protests?

UT canceling games vs Bama/Georgia eg

Expand  

A big part of it is just pig-headedness.  And, as I said above, I hate it so much.

A rationalization for it, that is hard to argue with, is that it won't come before the Supreme Court again unless states keep pushing it.  But I think it's going to take some precision shooting that most of these states and their legislatures are not capable of executing.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:11 PM, BrazilHorn said:

Why Rs insist on continuing to make this an issue is beyond me. 

(I get the sell out to evangelicals) but you’d think someone with some modicum of political savvy would stop this stupidity. 

Expand  

I think you answered your own question. The Party of Small Government sold their soul to the religious right in the 80's/90's. 

Posted (edited)
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:05 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The lynchpin of Roe is that the right of privacy makes the right to reproductive autonomy a "fundamental right," which requires a compelling state interest to infringe and a narrowly tailored, least restrictive infringement.  Because of the state of fetal viability science in 73, it was generally agreed that first trimester fetuses could not survive outside the womb, so the state could demonstrate no compelling interest in regulating such fetuses until after the first trimester, when viability was more certain.  The current state of science might move that date.  I don't keep up with that, because generally the abortion debate makes me shut down.

Expand  

Will be interesting when Alabama moves the allowable abortion date earlier, SCOTUS agrees that's reasonable "due to scientific advances", and then thousands of women in Alabama don't "abort" their pregnancies but rather "deliver early" by c-section, then use the Alabama safe-haven law to immediately and legally surrender the 6-week-old embryo to the emergency room workers.

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:17 PM, TwiceHorn said:

A big part of it is just pig-headedness.  And, as I said above, I hate it so much.

A rationalization for it, that is hard to argue with, is that it won't come before the Supreme Court again unless states keep pushing it.  But I think it's going to take some precision shooting that most of these states and their legislatures are not capable of executing.

Expand  

a federal judge in AL will take thirty seconds to rule it unconstitutional (as he/she must) and then will find his life immediately at danger.  obligated to follow the opinions issued from DC without the safety of distance from the nuts that passed the law.

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:13 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Agree.  Roberts won't do it I think for the same reasons you said.  There is too much of a public awareness of the issue to ban it, and even too much to give a wink-wink non-ban ruling.  I think the Korematsu argument is a good point, but I still see this as different.

You can look at the 1000s of people moving here from the rest of the country every day  (3 in for every 2 out) to see how to interpret that data.

Expand  

outside of the nice suburbs of the big cities, the southern counties are hellholes as are the urban areas of the big cities.  That's inherent to Texas, not to blame people moving here (also massive non Latino migrant community from Asia and Africa. 

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:19 PM, Huckleberry said:

Will be interesting when Alabama moves the allowable abortion date earlier, SCOTUS agrees that's reasonable "due to scientific advances", and then thousands of women in Alabama don't "abort" their pregnancies but rather "deliver early" by c-section, then use the Alabama safe-haven law to immediately and legally surrender the 6-week-old fetus to the emergency room workers.

Expand  

Yeah, that's my problem with the "abortion debate". Pragmatically, it's down right stupid to bring that many unwanted "kids" into the world. I'm confident that Alabama will see the error in their ways and fund universal healthcare/income/etc. for these kids. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
  On 5/16/2019 at 1:44 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

Curious what makes you think that. Roberts seems to be a fan of Stare Decisis.

Expand  

Because the idea of Roberts as a minimalist jurist who respects stare decisis is an image he likes to cultivate that isn't actually true. See Citizens United, Shelby County, Janus, and his deciding to re-write the medicaid expansion (in which he changed his mind on both the mandate and the medicaid expansion after the conference vote purely out of political considerations), among many other cases. Roberts has a long history of subtly maneuvering to make his partisan preferences the law in a way that isn't obvious to people who don't follow the Supreme Court pretty closely.

For example, in Shelby County, rather than cite an actual part of the Constitution that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act violated (because he couldn't), he ruled that it violated the Constitutional principle of "equal sovereignty of the states." What he conveniently elided was that this "principle" was no principle at all, but part of the basis on which Dred Scott (which was later overturned by two Constitutional amendments) was wrongly decided. And, to the extent this was ever a legal principle protected by the Constitution, it only applied to the terms upon which states were admitted to the union.  Roberts was smart and didn't want to be seen citing Dred Scott in a case overturning the Voting Rights Act, so a few years before Shelby County, he included some dicta in another case (Northwest Austin v. Holder) nakedly asserting that this "doctrine" of equal sovereignty reflected an "historic tradition." A few years later, when he had the opportunity, he overturned Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act citing his own emphasis from Northwest Austin on this "historic tradition" that he had essentially invented out of whole cloth (with an assist from pro-slavery justices from before the Civil War) a few years before.

These are not the actions of a justice simply interpreting what he believes the law to be, influenced by how he understands the world (as all judges are). These are the actions of a person who makes the law what he wants it to be. You might even say he legislates from the bench.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Like 4
Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:30 PM, wildcat09 said:

Roberts was smart and didn't want to be seen citing Dred Scott in a case overturning the Voting Rights Act, so a few years before Shelby County, he included some dicta in another case (Northwest Austin v. Holder) nakedly asserting that this "doctrine" of equal sovereignty reflected an "historic tradition." A few years later, when he had the opportunity, he overturned Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act citing his own emphasis from Northwest Austin on this "historic tradition" that he had essentially invented out of whole cloth (with an assist from pro-slavery justices from before the Civil War) a few years before.

Expand  

8 justices signed on to that opinion, with Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part.  So maybe 8.5.  That was a pretty good trick to get all SCOTUS justices to sign on to something he created out of whole cloth.

Posted
  On 5/16/2019 at 2:47 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

Gorsuch is an Episcopalian from Boulder.  He’d be a fucking pariah in his social circle if he overturned Roe or anything close to it.

Expand  

Episcopalians are generally pretty liberal on this I thought.

Now, granted, there are some hard shell Episcopalian churches, and I would wager not just a few west of the Mississippi.



×
×
  • Create New...