| Topic List |
Page List:
1 |
|---|---|
|
MICHALECOLE 05/10/22 3:52:13 AM #1: |
Like everybody kept talking about how the house and the senate were going to flip red, and I honestly thought yeah thatll probably happen, but now this fuck women campaign the right is going with us totally going to ruin their chances to ruin the country? hope so ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
The_Viscount 05/10/22 4:26:18 AM #2: |
While the left is going to try to press it to their advantage, there's a strong chance the revocation won't go through anyway given the backlash so far. And, honestly, it's never seemed that likely. Otherwise, I feel like the impact on elections is probably overstated. The loudest voices are going to vote the way they've always voted. Then the areas most for it or against it are still likely to vote the same way -- it's not like states that kept passing restrictive abortion bills are suddenly going to do a complete about-face when they could've done it all along. The more interesting impact is a potential migration between states, where states will ultimately go more red or blue which has implications for the electoral college. --- Woken LLC ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Gaawa_chan 05/10/22 4:49:55 AM #3: |
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096641003/republicans-in-michigan-have-replaced-election-officials-who-certified-bidens-wi :-/ --- Hi ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Revelation34 05/10/22 6:16:34 AM #4: |
There was no red wave. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Fam_Fam 05/10/22 8:09:22 AM #5: |
no the dems will still fuck up and lose ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
papercup 05/10/22 8:23:11 AM #6: |
No, republicans are going to cheat and steal as many seats as they can. --- Nintendo Network ID: papercups 3DS FC: 4124 5916 9925 ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SKARDAVNELNATE 05/10/22 8:25:16 AM #7: |
I don't think this is that serious of an issue. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Jen0125 05/10/22 8:55:00 AM #8: |
SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't think this is that serious of an issue. ??? ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Blightzkrieg 05/10/22 9:14:24 AM #9: |
I honestly think controlling the supreme Court is worth losing in the midterms, even if that happens. They'll regroup in 2024, but Roe v Wade is likely gone for decades. --- http://i.imgur.com/1XbPahR.png ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Revelation34 05/10/22 10:43:36 AM #10: |
Blightzkrieg posted... I honestly think controlling the supreme Court is worth losing in the midterms, even if that happens. Yeah that's definitely going to happen. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Lokarin 05/10/22 10:45:24 AM #11: |
Meanwhile, every other country: "Who cares? Both Roe and Wade have been dead for decades" --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/10/22 11:08:15 AM #12: |
The_Viscount posted... Otherwise, I feel like the impact on elections is probably overstated. The loudest voices are going to vote the way they've always voted. Then the areas most for it or against it are still likely to vote the same way -- it's not like states that kept passing restrictive abortion bills are suddenly going to do a complete about-face when they could've done it all along. Most of the impact is going to take the form of voter turnout, rather than how people vote. You'll get a relatively small handful of people that do change their vote based on the issue (either way, really, since some anti-abortion folks that would normally vote blue may see the Feds' efforts to codify Roe v. Wade into law as an overreach and change their vote to prevent that), but you're correct that that won't make a huge difference because most people already factor abortion rights into their voting decisions as much as they ever will. Far more significantly than that, though, this development has raised the stakes of the election quite dramatically in many people's eyes, so you're going to get quite a few people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered voting making a point of doing so. That's going to favour the left more than the right, given that the pro-abortion rights viewpoint is more popular by a considerable margin, but the exact impact remains to be seen. The_Viscount posted... While the left is going to try to press it to their advantage, there's a strong chance the revocation won't go through anyway given the backlash so far. And, honestly, it's never seemed that likely. It might, it might not, but the effects it's going to have on midterms and the 2024 election are going to happen anyway. Regardless of whether or not it goes through, the Supreme Court has tipped its hand and shown that they are willing and able to overturn the abortion rights so many people have been taking for granted. Codifying it into law (or preventing that) has therefore become a pressing election issue, and that urgency is going to affect how and how many people vote. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't think this is that serious of an issue. It's literally a matter of life and death, with even further consequences for health, financial stability, and psychological well-being, as well as broader questions of gender equality, personal liberty, and public health. If you don't think it's a serious issue, it's because you haven't considered the issue beyond its immediate effect on you, and that's generally not a very sensible way to approach social issues. Revelation34 posted... Yeah that's definitely going to happen. It's a non-zero risk. If the precedent is overturned, it's going to be a very long time before it's re-established, especially given that the court that overturned it is very unlikely to reverse that decision. The current oldest SC Justice is 83 (and is a Clinton nominee), the next only 73 (Bush), with everyone else in their 60's or younger, so it could very well be 30+ years before the court sees enough turnover to start changing their minds. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| #13 | Post #13 was unavailable or deleted. |
|
hungrymike 05/10/22 11:56:16 AM #14: |
I think inflation/economy are going to be the bigger issues with these elections. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Adam_Savage 05/10/22 11:57:34 AM #15: |
Kotenks posted... I don't know. There's a lot of time until the midterm elections and the Supreme Court hasn't actually released their opinion. The Judges could uphold Roe but allow 15 week restrictions. It'd be nonsensical but they could do that after the backlash. only three people there would even consider backlash into their rulings the others do not care --- that's one body that'll never be found you see, little sister don't miss when she aims her gun ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Jen0125 05/10/22 12:00:21 PM #16: |
Why would they care about backlash anyway? They have lifetime appointments and with our current Gov it'd be impossible to get votes to impeach any of them. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| #17 | Post #17 was unavailable or deleted. |
|
Adam_Savage 05/10/22 12:08:21 PM #18: |
lmao they interpret the law based on their own political bias, always have it's why it's a fairly big deal when a president gets to appoint a seat, because obviously they aren't going to elect someone who is their entire political opposite --- that's one body that'll never be found you see, little sister don't miss when she aims her gun ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
JixHedgehog 05/10/22 12:28:25 PM #19: |
Whoever leaked the memo was probably hoping it would do that kind of damage, but it most likely won't --- Remember! Violence is never the answer.. unless you're a Liberal.. or from Hollywood apparently.. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
BTH_Phoenix 05/10/22 1:15:12 PM #20: |
Opinions were split so nothing happened for 50 years. Opinions are still split. Might be another 50 before something changes. --- *whoosh* ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/10/22 1:36:54 PM #21: |
JixHedgehog posted... Whoever leaked the memo was probably hoping it would do that kind of damage, but it most likely won't Alternate wording: "Whoever leaked the memo was probably trying to help voters be informed of a highly contentious issue ahead of an election." --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
IqarP15 05/10/22 2:08:51 PM #22: |
Just another knock against people-couples who want kids the traditional way but can't because of him-her-both. While females who can have kids are constantly complaining about unwanted kids but still want that "babybatter injection". For each abortion hefty fines should be implemented. $250k should be enough of a fine since that is about how much it costs to raise a kid. --- "SPOILERS"... If ppl call me a douche bag I reply "Well at least I'm scoring!" ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
MICHALECOLE 05/10/22 2:10:31 PM #23: |
IqarP15 posted... Just another knock against people-couples who want kids the traditional way but can't because of him-her-both. While females who can have kids are constantly complaining about unwanted kids but still want that "babybatter injection". For each abortion hefty fines should be implemented. $250k should be enough of a fine since that is about how much it costs to raise a kid.lmao jesus fuckin christ ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/10/22 2:10:49 PM #24: |
adjl posted... If the precedent is overturned, it's going to be a very long time before it's re-established, especially given that the court that overturned it is very unlikely to reverse that decision.I wouldn't be so sure. To me, the single most dangerous element of this decision, assuming it stands, is it deals the concept of stare decicis - the idea that a case, once decided, is settled law - a potentially fatal blow. Stare decisis is the bedrock of any good legal system. It binds judges to accept and abide by precedent, whatever their personal feelings on the matter, unless an extremely compelling argument can be raised that the matter was both wrongly decided at the outset and that a substantial shift in public opinion has called into question the validity of the initial ruling (as was the case in, for instance, Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sanford). Neither has happened in this case. The question of the legality of abortion has been brought before the Supreme Court dozens of times and the rulings in its favour are multitude and unambiguous at this point. It's worth noting that nearly two thirds of the American populace - and 100% of all women of childbearing age who will be directly affected by this decision - have never lived in an era where abortion was outlawed anywhere in the US. No substantial shift in public opinion has taken place and, based on the most recent polls, the American public support Roe v. Wade remaining in force by at least a 2:1 ratio. This is judicial activism - "legislating from the bench" - in the most overt, explicit manner possible. And, as the last few decades have shown, once legal and political "norms" are damaged, they tend to collapse almost immediately are seldom ever repaired. The minority party worked in good faith with the majority party to pass laws... until they didn't. Presidents were afforded the right to appoint people to judicial and executive positions and have them heard and confirmed by the senate in a timely manner... until they weren't. The senate focused itself on good governance and compromise to keep things running in an orderly manner... until it didn't. Supreme Court nominees were vetted on their qualifications and expertise, rather than their political opinions... until they weren't. Losers of elections conceded graciously and allowed the winners to take power peacefully and uncontested... until they didn't. So add this one to the pile. The Supreme Court's function as an impartial arbiter of the law, unbound to political leanings, was already on pretty shaky ground for the last 15 or so years, but this is most likely the death knell (already visible in approval ratings for the court that have plummeted over the last couple of years). The Supreme Court will now be firmly acknowledged just another political wing of the US government and, accordingly, can expect to be treated as such, with all the political gamesmanship and shenanigans that entails. Packing the court, once a fringe idea, will continue to gain mainstream appeal until it is executed (and another norm will be stripped away) by a party sufficiently empowered by voters and annoyed by an activist bench. Settled law will no longer be considered such and everything will now be on the table. This includes sacred cows on both the left (the right to gay marriage, the right to organized labour, and the rights protecting minorities) and the right (the right to unrestricted personal firearms ownership, the right to unlimited political donations, the right to political gerrymandering). Expect to see several of these supposedly "settled" cases be re-decided in the next few years, using the exact same language as this decision. This is honestly a lot more dangerous of a decision than most people appreciate. Agree with Roe or don't, that's your business, but to straight-up overrule such a fundamental piece of American jurisprudence based on nothing but personal political conviction is a kicking a hornet's nest of almost unprecedented scale. And once it is done, there will be no getting the genie back in the bottle - this will be the norm for years to come. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Kyuubi4269 05/10/22 2:18:40 PM #25: |
darkknight109 posted... To me, the single most dangerous element of this decision, assuming it stands, is it deals the concept of stare decicis - the idea that a case, once decided, is settled law - a potentially fatal blow. The idea that the decision of interpretation of a supreme court at a completely arbitrary point in time is settled law isn't a great precedent to have as a whole. If a decision represents the people, a law matching the decision should be put through the same rigour as every other law to cement it as legitimate. The opinions of the supreme court are not concrete, and neither are the people occupying the positions, the beliefs of the past shouldn't have greater weight than the beliefs of today. Generally stare decisis is only meaningful to lower courts anyway, so the supreme court is always free to change their mind in principle. This has zero relevance to the principle you're scared of. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| #26 | Post #26 was unavailable or deleted. |
|
adjl 05/10/22 2:30:04 PM #27: |
IqarP15 posted... Just another knock against people-couples who want kids the traditional way but can't because of him-her-both. While females who can have kids are constantly complaining about unwanted kids but still want that "babybatter injection". For each abortion hefty fines should be implemented. $250k should be enough of a fine since that is about how much it costs to raise a kid. And... what exactly would be the basis for that? Kyuubi4269 posted... The idea that the decision of interpretation of a supreme court at a completely arbitrary point in time is settled law isn't a great precedent to have as a whole. If a decision represents the people, a law matching the decision should be put through the same rigour as every other law to cement it as legitimate. That's what his next paragraph covers. Precedent doesn't need to be absolutely sacrosanct, but if the beliefs of the past need to be replaced by the beliefs of today, that replacement should follow a far more rigorous process than "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." This is a decision that is not grounded in any more robust judicial reasoning than any of the countless other failed challenges to the ruling, nor does it reflect the will of the American people as a whole. It's a largely arbitrary decision to overturn an extremely significant piece of legal precedent, which I strongly suspect is being done purely for the sake of trying to win over the anti-abortion voters that want the Republican party to overturn it (which is a blatant display of partisanship from what is supposed to be a non-partisan entity). --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/10/22 2:32:35 PM #28: |
[LFAQs-redacted-quote] So... leaking it changed little to nothing except to push the outrage up by a month? In that case, if anything, leaking it early may limit the impact it has on the election because people get tired of being outraged and lose that extra motivation to get out and vote. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Kyuubi4269 05/10/22 2:34:56 PM #29: |
adjl posted... hat's what his next paragraph covers. Precedent doesn't need to be absolutely sacrosanct, but if the beliefs of the past need to be replaced by the beliefs of today, that replacement should follow a far more rigorous process than "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." This is a decision that is not grounded in any more robust judicial reasoning than any of the countless other failed challenges to the ruling, nor does it reflect the will of the American people as a whole. It's a largely arbitrary decision to overturn an extremely significant piece of legal precedent, which I strongly suspect is being done purely for the sake of trying to win over the anti-abortion voters that want the Republican party to overturn it (which is a blatant display of partisanship from what is supposed to be a non-partisan entity). Roe V Wade was also "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." so this decision is just as valid as the last one. Liking the decision they made before doesn't make it more valid than a decision now. If anything, this just reinforces the need to do these things in the first place. This was always a vulnerability, and complacency lead to it staying at risk. It seems ridiculous to cry about a problem that always existed only after it comes to fruition, like crying your family member died in a car crash because of no seat belt but you said nothing for the years prior when they still weren't doing it. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/10/22 2:38:19 PM #30: |
Kyuubi4269 posted... The idea that the decision of interpretation of a supreme court at a completely arbitrary point in time is settled law isn't a great precedent to have as a whole.Odd, then, that that's how legal systems - including the US - have operated for centuries now. Kyuubi4269 posted... The opinions of the supreme court are not concrete, and neither are the people occupying the positionsThing is, laws - at least in theory - aren't supposed to be a matter of opinion; they are documents that are meant to be factual. Something either is a crime or it isn't; something either is permissible under the law or it isn't. And once the highest authority in the land has ruled on that - and for legal matters, that's supposed to be the Supreme Court - then the matter is supposed to be settled, as any questions as to the law's application and authority have now been answered. Saying that laws are "whatever the current Supreme Court says they are at this given moment in time" throws the entire idea of a concrete legal doctrine into question, because each change in the makeup of the justices now suggests laws are once again open for "interpretation", which becomes a euphemism for "wholesale change without congressional oversight". We can already see the early effects of this, given how many states in the last five years or so passed anti-abortion laws that were flagrantly unconstitutional and violated previous Supreme Court rulings, because they hoped the current Supreme Court would rule differently, despite the question of the legality of such laws having already been unambiguously settled in court. This becomes a waste of everyone's time and money. Justices have to reconsider issues that have already been debated and settled, instead of ruling on new legal questions and cases, the government has to litigate their position on the matter (as do any private parties who may be affected by the ruling), and the taxpayer is on the hook for all of it. If you are charged with an offence and tried in court, you get one kick at the cat (barring substantiated allegations of impropriety that would cause the verdict to be set aside). Once you're declared guilty or not guilty, that's it, case is over and settled. You can appeal the ruling and argue that parts of the trial were conducted improperly, but you cannot have the case heard again in a different court. The government can't try you again a year later in the hopes of getting a different judge that might be more sympathetic to their cause. This is no different. Once a ruling is made, that ruling is law, and should only be overturned if a substantial change in public opinion and the legal landscape calls the original ruling into question. Kyuubi4269 posted... Generally stare decisis is only meaningful to lower courts anywayThis is factually incorrect, as virtually all of the Supreme Court justices - regardless of ideology - have publicly attested to. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| #31 | Post #31 was unavailable or deleted. |
|
adjl 05/10/22 3:06:34 PM #32: |
Kyuubi4269 posted... Roe V Wade was also "the justices in today's court don't like it so too bad." so this decision is just as valid as the last one. In that case, however, there wasn't established precedent. In doing so, they established a precedent upon which all relevant laws have been based since then. Changing that precedent needs to entail coming up with a reason why it should be changed. Arbitrary decisions should only be made when there's no basis available for making more justified decisions. Ignoring an existing basis and deciding something arbitrarily (especially when that existing basis strongly supports making a different decision) is a really bad idea and sets a rather dangerous precedent for inconsistently applying the law. Kyuubi4269 posted... If anything, this just reinforces the need to do these things in the first place. This was always a vulnerability, and complacency lead to it staying at risk. This, however, is true. It should have been codified into law decades ago, rather than leaning so heavily on a pretty flimsy legal precedent and the hope that the Supreme Court would be reasonable enoguh not to arbitrarily overturn it. The Supreme Court arbitrarily overturning things based on personal/political whims is still a very significant problem, but a lot of that can be mitigated by establishing formal laws based on established precedent so there's something more concrete that needs to be challenged before overturning that precedent. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/10/22 3:09:44 PM #33: |
[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Really, that shouldn't need a leak. The court shouldn't be trying to blindside the country with a decision like this after discussing the whole thing behind closed doors and sharing none of the process they've followed to reach the decision. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| #34 | Post #34 was unavailable or deleted. |
|
Adam_Savage 05/10/22 3:25:52 PM #35: |
IqarP15 posted... some real fuckin dumb shit yeah, that makes perfect sense. fine people who can't afford to raise a child a quarter of a million dollars because...logic --- that's one body that'll never be found you see, little sister don't miss when she aims her gun ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
JixHedgehog 05/10/22 6:18:03 PM #36: |
adjl posted... Alternate wording: "Whoever leaked the memo was probably trying to help voters be informed of a highly contentious issue ahead of an election." Fair enough, but it was (probably) still leaked in the hope of scoring some Left votes Wouldnt be that big of a deal if the Libs weren't tanking in every other issue, you gotta go fish where you know they'll bite [LFAQs-redacted-quote] Its unfortunate for the SCOTUS that the Primary season is well under way.. --- Remember! Violence is never the answer.. unless you're a Liberal.. or from Hollywood apparently.. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Zareth 05/10/22 7:02:38 PM #37: |
Fam_Fam posted... no the dems will still fuck up and lose papercup posted... No, republicans are going to cheat and steal as many seats as they can. --- In my opinion, all slavery is wrong, even the really fancy kind - Mead ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SKARDAVNELNATE 05/10/22 7:13:34 PM #38: |
adjl posted... It's literally a matter of life and death, with even further consequences for health, financial stability, and psychological well-being, as well as broader questions of gender equality, personal liberty, and public health. If you don't think it's a serious issue, it's because you haven't considered the issue beyond its immediate effect on you, and that's generally not a very sensible way to approach social issues.All that will happen is states will pass their own laws allowing it or banning it. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Gaawa_chan 05/10/22 7:19:46 PM #39: |
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages --- Hi ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
The_Viscount 05/11/22 1:42:05 AM #40: |
adjl posted... Most of the impact is going to take the form of voter turnout, rather than how people vote. You'll get a relatively small handful of people that do change their vote based on the issue (either way, really, since some anti-abortion folks that would normally vote blue may see the Feds' efforts to codify Roe v. Wade into law as an overreach and change their vote to prevent that), but you're correct that that won't make a huge difference because most people already factor abortion rights into their voting decisions as much as they ever will. Far more significantly than that, though, this development has raised the stakes of the election quite dramatically in many people's eyes, so you're going to get quite a few people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered voting making a point of doing so. That's going to favour the left more than the right, given that the pro-abortion rights viewpoint is more popular by a considerable margin, but the exact impact remains to be seen. But where are the impacted areas for the turnout? Again, the states most likely to ban abortion now are the same states that've been pushing restrictive abortion measures. If they couldn't get turnout over that, why would they get it over this? While the blue states -- where it was never a concern -- might see a bump as a token gesture, it's not like it affects anything. The blue states will stay blue either way. Hell, CT's Republicans already conceded the gubernatorial election by running the same blockhead who lost in 2018 (and was literally the only guy who could lose to Lamont back then). darkknight109 posted... So add this one to the pile. The Supreme Court's function as an impartial arbiter of the law, unbound to political leanings, was already on pretty shaky ground for the last 15 or so years, Which was more or less bound to happen when nominations moved away from consensus to majority, as a result of parties trying to actively obstruct each others' candidates. When parties stopped seeking universal approval, they sometimes pushed candidates who increasingly suited their preferences. Although, I guess on a broader level, all of this goes back to shifts in SCOTUS where landmark decisions like Roe v Wade were initially decided. Or the larger trend can be traced to the growing federal government and centralized power adjl posted... Really, that shouldn't need a leak. The court shouldn't be trying to blindside the country with a decision like this after discussing the whole thing behind closed doors and sharing none of the process they've followed to reach the decision. ITP: "Judges shouldn't be allowed to discuss court matters in private." Whether or not you agree with the decision, the idea judges shouldn't be allowed to hold private discussions is absurd. What's next? Suggesting politicians shouldn't discuss things in private? --- Woken LLC ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Adam_Savage 05/11/22 2:07:37 AM #41: |
The_Viscount posted... Suggesting politicians shouldn't discuss things in private fucking yes, absolutely. also go after them for insider trading, disclose any and all stocks they have, then connect tangenital ones. they have a wife or husband? go after them, too. set term limits, set age limits, get rid of the fucking filibuster why the fuck do we allow these elected officials to do everything they can to go against their constituents, why do we allow them to campaign on something and then completely do the opposite of what they were campaigning for, why do we allow these old mother fuckers from the 50's to decide what's best for us, why do we allow these people to go against what the fucking majority of the population wants, why do we allow the minority in the house to somehow have more fucking power than the majority but only when it's a specific political group as the minority. why doesn't the other side do what the fuck they campaign for. why is shit not happening to actually help the population grow and prosper. why the fuck are we going backwards --- that's one body that'll never be found you see, little sister don't miss when she aims her gun ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Zareth 05/11/22 3:13:39 AM #42: |
The_Viscount posted... ITP: "Judges shouldn't be allowed to discuss court matters in private."Court matters should stay in the fucking court, Zeus. --- In my opinion, all slavery is wrong, even the really fancy kind - Mead ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/11/22 10:54:04 AM #43: |
The_Viscount posted... Again, the states most likely to ban abortion now are the same states that've been pushing restrictive abortion measures. If they couldn't get turnout over that, why would they get it over this? Because there's been a sort of tacit assumption that, whatever measures states try to push, Roe v. Wade will block them from getting too bad. That assumption isn't necessarily accurate even without the precedent being overturned, and is instead more based on blind faith that the world won't actually be as terrible as it could hypothetically be, but regardless of its accuracy in a more general sense, Roe v. Wade actually being overturned shatters it completely and lays bare just how high the stakes are. That will get people voting. The_Viscount posted... While the blue states -- where it was never a concern -- might see a bump as a token gesture, it's not like it affects anything. The blue states will stay blue either way. Hell, CT's Republicans already conceded the gubernatorial election by running the same blockhead who lost in 2018 (and was literally the only guy who could lose to Lamont back then). Like pretty much any contentious election issue, it's a given that swing states are going to be most affected by this. The states that were already guaranteed to go blue will stay blue and the states that were already guaranteed to go red will stay red, but there are absolutely states where the outcome is much less certain, which can be affected by issues like this. The_Viscount posted... ITP: "Judges shouldn't be allowed to discuss court matters in private." When you're dealing with legal precedent that will have an immediate effect on the rights of millions of citizens? Damn straight. Nothing about this needs to be secretive, so nothing about it should be secretive. Secrecy in government matters should be justified as case-by-case exceptions, not treated as the default with transparency being exceptional. And before you break out some flimsy piece of whataboutism to try and prove that I'm hypocritical in saying that, I feel the same way about all government matters, so I'll probably agree that whatever examples you come up with should also be handled more transparently unless I can come up with some justification to except them. JixHedgehog posted... Wouldnt be that big of a deal if the Libs weren't tanking in every other issue, It's a very big deal regardless of what else is going on. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... All that will happen is states will pass their own laws allowing it or banning it. And states passing their own laws is literally a matter of life and death, with even further consequences for health, financial stability, and psychological well-being, as well as broader questions of gender equality, personal liberty, and public health. If you don't think it's a serious issue, it's because you haven't considered the issue beyond its immediate effect on you, and that's generally not a very sensible way to approach social issues. Beyond that, as much as the anti-abortion crowd tries to frame it as a state's rights issue to gain sympathy points in lieu of defending the position itself (note the historical parallels to the Confederates and slavery), there's really no reason to expect them to stop there. This is a group that objects to abortion at a fundamental moral level. They don't want it to ever happen, and the only way they can think of to achieve that goal is to make it illegal everywhere. Heck, a great many of them want to include a ban on "abortive contraceptives," which is an extremely vague term that can easily be taken as far as "every sperm is sacred" to ban even condoms (given that many of these people basically want non-procreative sex to be illegal, that would be considered a reasonably proxy for actually doing that). Overturning Roe v. Wade opens the door to pushes for federal laws against abortion, contraception, and anything else deemed "immoral" by this crowd because it makes it clear that legal precedent protecting those rights can be discarded freely. This government will not seize the opening created by Roe v. Wade's revocation to create sweeping anti-abortion laws. We can be reasonably certain of that. The next Republican one, however, might, if that's seen as a popular enough opinion to be a core campaign issue. Trump ran and won on a promise to overturn Roe v. Wade. This will only be the beginning unless decisive laws are put in place to nip it in the bud. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
VampireCoyote 05/11/22 11:19:22 AM #44: |
SKARDAVNELNATE posted... All that will happen is states will pass their own laws allowing it or banning it. states stupid enough to ban it are gonna find out how bad they fucked around when they get slapped in the face with the upswing in violence, crime, and school dropout rates. Worldwide you see things improve across the board in any society where women are given education regarding reproduction and access to abortion services if needed. take away choice and face the consequences. And since these are the same states that usually leech off of federal aid to begin with, we should cut that off. Fuck em. --- cut my life into peas ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
Jen0125 05/11/22 11:31:07 AM #45: |
VampireCoyote posted... states stupid enough to ban it are gonna find out how bad they fucked around when they get slapped in the face with the upswing in violence, crime, and school dropout rates. It's not like those state don't already take the bulk of what we pay for welfare and other social safety net programs. Total hypocrites. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/11/22 11:40:06 AM #46: |
I really enjoyed (and by "enjoyed," I mean "was disgusted by") a few years back when Alabama was trying to pass some draconian abortion law and the prevailing narrative was that "Alabama cares deeply about our children." I saw several different people respond by pointing out that, of the 50 states, Alabama was in the bottom 5 (if not the absolute bottom) in pretty much every metric for child welfare, including infant mortality. At best, this is misguided slacktivism. More commonly, it's the idea that women (and only women, because no commensurate consequences are ever applied to the male half of any given pregnancy) deserve to be punished for having sex, and that's just stupid. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
VampireCoyote 05/11/22 12:02:46 PM #47: |
adjl posted... I really enjoyed (and by "enjoyed," I mean "was disgusted by") a few years back when Alabama was trying to pass some draconian abortion law and the prevailing narrative was that "Alabama cares deeply about our children." I saw several different people respond by pointing out that, of the 50 states, Alabama was in the bottom 5 (if not the absolute bottom) in pretty much every metric for child welfare, including infant mortality. its doubly offensive today when so many women are powerful doms --- cut my life into peas ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| Topic List |
Page List:
1 |