America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 weeks ago by Sunoverbeach. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Governing America: How to save the Supreme Court from itself
rfenst Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
Sunoverbeach wrote:
A woman in a hot-air balloon is lost, so she shouts to a man below, "Excuse me. I promised a friend I would meet him, but I don't know where I am."
"You're at 31 degrees, 14.57 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude," he replies.
"You must be a Democrat."
"I am. How did you know?"
"Because everything you told me is technically correct, but the information is useless, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've been no help."
"You must be a Republican."
"Yes. How did you know?"
"You've risen to where you are due to a lot of hot air, you made a promise you couldn't keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

Great one!
rfenst Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
Protesting Supreme Court injustice has been a vital part of US history

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has said, regarding those who protest the potential decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, that “We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like.”

This is a remarkable statement.

By this same philosophy, we should chide those, who were unwilling to “live with” Dred Scott v. Sanford. Perhaps if Justice Thomas had been on the Supreme Court in 1857, he would have scolded Frederick Douglass for delivering his famous “The Dred Scott Decision” speech before the American Abolition Society. But then, again, Justice Thomas would have been unable to be on the Supreme Court then because, according to Dred Scott, he would not have been a citizen or a person of the United States, and that as a Black man he did not have “any rights that a white man need respect.” But according to the Justice, he would just live with the outcome.

The relationship between the Supreme Court’s edicts and the acceptance of the people has always been an integral part of the American fabric and an anticipated part of how we govern and hopefully progress. Just as it is naive to think that the Supreme Court renders its decision in a vacuum, unmindful of the social and political impact, it is equally incorrect to believe that the body politic is ever content to “wait until the Court comes to its senses.”

Immediate accountability for the volcanic impact of society changing Supreme Court doctrine is not only logically to be anticipated but profoundly to be wished for.

A society that does not immediately respond to the potential devastation from legal doctrine espoused by nine individuals with lifetime appointments is a socially dead society and certainly one that is inconsistent with a republic where “supreme power is held by the people.”

The Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine of “separate but equal” may have ultimately been overturned, but Brown v. Board of Education was as much, and probably more, a result of the protest, outrage and determination of those who very often lost their lives, than it was an intellectual reconsideration. Without the effort and sacrifice of those who stood up in protest, Plessy and Dred Scott would have been “good law” for another century. Who should live with that outcome?

So too, we confront the rights of women to determine the health and safety of their own bodies. This is not simply a philosophical/moral debate to be pondered and determined by reliance on 12th-century doctrine (as is supposedly the justification in the Alito draft of the proposed majority opinion). Thousands of women, many of them economically poor and disenfranchised, have and will lose their lives in back-alley butcher shops. Yes, it is also an immediate crisis for the life of the unborn. Neither of these challenges can afford to wait for society to “live with the outcome” of decisions without protest.

At stake for society is not just the specific right of women to obtain an abortion. The rationale of Roe v. Wade, presumably to be overturned, rests itself in the implicit right to privacy that flows from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th amendments. Diminishing or eliminating the rights of Roe v. Wade may be tantamount to, or at least a precursor to, limiting or eliminating our constitutional protection of right to privacy in area outside of abortion.

In a world of constant invasion by government into the privacy of our lives in areas ranging from electronic communication to the confidentiality of our visits to doctors or clergy, destructive legal doctrine is not an outcome that any of us should “live with” although disagreeing, until the Supreme Court changes its mind. Speaking out (nonviolently) both forcefully and immediately is what fuels transformative change.

Decision-making in tough cases with substantial social consequences, is what the Supreme Court does. Protesting the injustice of those decisions is what the people do.


LeRoy Pernell is a professor of law at Florida A&M.
ZRX1200 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
You know what.

THEY F***ED the Commerce Clause to the benefit of centralized powers. They continue to **** up things like something being ok if it’s a tax when it wasn’t ever a tax….. They hold no one to their oaths. They continue to let lower courts use Chevron Deference to *** our right and used it for criminal statutes.

RayR Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
ZRX1200 wrote:
You know what.

THEY F***ED the Commerce Clause to the benefit of centralized powers. They continue to **** up things like something being ok if it’s a tax when it wasn’t ever a tax….. They hold no one to their oaths. They continue to let lower courts use Chevron Deference to *** our right and used it for criminal statutes.


Yep, the nationalist centralizers will do anything, including perverting the meaning of any word to proliferate their power over the states and the people. Partisan judges in the courts have always been one of their major tools. The big government nationalists will claim we must show deference to all decisions of the courts even when they are clearly bad decisions and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court doesn't make "edicts", laws or whatever you want to call them, it only makes opinions and those opinions carry no weight and are unenforceable by the court. The final judge has to be the states and the people based upon their rights and powers under the constitutional compact. If we don't have that, then we live ostensively under a consolidated federal dictatorship.

As Thomas Jefferson warned in a letter to Nathaniel Macon in 1821:

"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

As former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote on January 28, 2012 in When the Government Declares You a Nonperson

Quote:
"The Supreme Court declared that the baby in the womb is not a person. When it made that declaration, it rejected dozens of decisions of other courts, in America and in Great Britain, holding that the baby in the womb is a person. This is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 in which it ruled that blacks were not persons. In both cases, it cited no precedent, it gave no rational basis, and in Roe vs. Wade, it merely said that because philosophers, physicians and lawyers could not agree on whether babies in wombs are persons, it would declare them not to be persons."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/01/andrew-p-napolitano/when-the-government-declares-you-a-nonperson/








Speyside2 Online
#55 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
^ When does it become a baby as opposed to a potential baby as opposed to a bunch of cells as opposed to a few cells as opposed to a fertilized egg as opposed to an unfertilized egg?
Speyside2 Online
#56 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

A good read.
Speyside2 Online
#57 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2019/04/23/pro-life-and-pro-choice-advocates-can-work-together-reduce-abortion-contraception-fetal-heartbeat/3548523002/

Another good read.
Speyside2 Online
#58 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
https://www.thoughtco.com/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-721108

Best read of the 3.
ZRX1200 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
Spey I believe there’s a contentious and reasonable conversation to be had. Politicians don’t get elected for that though.
HockeyDad Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Speyside2 wrote:
^ When does it become a baby as opposed to a potential baby as opposed to a bunch of cells as opposed to a few cells as opposed to a fertilized egg as opposed to an unfertilized egg?


It becomes a baby after we decide we don’t want to kill it.
Dg west deptford Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, "
Sunoverbeach Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
I would argue the ability to think and reason, but then there'd be several 180th trimester babies that'd be worthy of the procedure
HockeyDad Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Sunoverbeach wrote:
I would argue the ability to think and reason, but then there'd be several 180th trimester babies that'd be worthy of the procedure


I’ve met plenty of teenagers who could get late termed under that definition.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
Them too
Speyside2 Online
#65 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
Actually there are several on here that meet that definition.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
Well 180th trimester would put them around their mid 40s. You could add a few trimesters if you need to.


I got an e-mail saying “At Google Earth, we can even read maps backwards”, and I thought...
“That’s just spam”
RayR Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
A perfectly normal everyday Satanic Commie Democrat exercising freedom of speech:

“Ladies, if you get pregnant, run on down to the abortion clinic, and have that little **** sucked right out” 👶

https://youtu.be/tn5Q8_7HSiU
Brewha Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
Dg west deptford wrote:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, "

I knew it - condoms are murder…..
ZRX1200 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
They’re for quitters just like rehab.
Dg west deptford Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
Silly Brewha, if someone could kill you with a condom it's your fault.
It goes on your other head
Brewha Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
Actually Dg, you brought up a good fundamental point - pun intended.

The whole idea that a first trimester abortion is murder is based on a believe in a soul. Why there are those who believe that using a condom is a mortal sin as it interferes with the will of God. Hence the Catholics inventing Rhythm and Blues….

Now I’m good with people believing all of that. It is their right.

But you cannot ignore that these believes have systematically been used to deprive others of their rights. Christians and Muslins are particularly good at this. And not the something so fundamental as reproductive rights, hell in some places you cannot even show your face - if you on one of Gods lesser people - women that is.
Dg west deptford Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
"Catholics" offense at 1 prophylactics
Dg west deptford Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
Stupid phone^ didn't mean to post that
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Dg west deptford wrote:
Silly Brewha, if someone could kill you with a condom it's your fault.
It goes on your other head


Chuck Norris could.
Brewha Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
HockeyDad wrote:
Chuck Norris could.

But Chuck Norris would never wear a condom - because there is no protection for Chuck Norris!
Dg west deptford Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
"Catholics" offense at prophylactic use is absurd. Biblically speaking. I could discuss the issue but no thanks, like you I won't begrudge someone their self imposed rules. You just can't impose your gray issue rules on secular society.

Do the 10 commandments perfect than come tell me your new ones.

Whether it's religious leaders or political leaders they are all men.

Making mistakes men make.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying
HockeyDad Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Dg west deptford wrote:

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying


I think you can sell the parts and pieces.
Brewha Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
Dg west deptford wrote:
"Catholics" offense at prophylactic use is absurd. Biblically speaking. I could discuss the issue but no thanks, like you I won't begrudge someone their self imposed rules. You just can't impose your gray issue rules on secular society.

Do the 10 commandments perfect than come tell me your new ones.

Whether it's religious leaders or political leaders they are all men.

Making mistakes men make.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying

No - not throwing anything out here, just looking at the perspective.

I mean I see telling people that they must have child from a rapist - or at all for that matter - is a unjustifiable crime. But it does seem that many feel its “God’s will” so that makes it just ducky.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
Whats the only free food you will get from a Nigerian scammer?
Spam.
ZRX1200 Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
Brew, just spitballing here, what’s that percentage?
Brewha Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
ZRX1200 wrote:
Brew, just spitballing here, what’s that percentage?

Not sure I understand the ask - but if you mean what percentage of pregnancy is from rape I would think if is statistically very low.

Another here holds that Americans who died from Covid are inconsequential because they are a low percentage of head count. Me I think a million dead Americans is a big deal.

And in the same way, percentages don’t justify the actions.
ZRX1200 Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
Oh yeah I was totally going for justifying rape Sarcasm
Speyside2 Online
#83 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
Brewha, I do not feel human life begins at fertilization. That is dogmatic control of the masses. Nor is it once the child is born. That is governmental control of the masses. Both are evil.

Simply put, for me anyone who takes a stand that enforces their beliefs on anyone else just because that is their belief is evil. Also in my opinion they are stupid. I am not only talking about those who believe in God, but also those who do not.

It is way beyond my comprehension to understand right and wrong here. Because I believe in God I will say this. It is not for me to judge, that is for God. Though it is evil to us abortion as birth control. In that instance I see 1st degree murder. Of course, this would have to be repetitive in nature.

Most people do not understand how I can be pro choice and pro life. The best answer I can come up with is you be you, I'll be me. The same people don't understand how I can be pro life and pro death penalty ( with specific circumstances) Such as John Wayne Gacey.
Brewha Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,558
Spey, I respect you views. They seem well thought out and reasonable.

I would float the idea that women should have the right to not carry a pregnancy to term for some reasonable amount of time - say 3 months. Opinions of God an morality aside, they have rights.

But it is even less simple than that. Some peoples believes compel them to punish the wicked for not conforming to their opinion of “God’s will” or their own arbitrary moral standards.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”




Oh, what a wonderful world…..
RayR Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
I hate WITCHES. Burn em' 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
rfenst Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
Reversing Roe sure to make US democracy harder to fix


Bloomberg Opinion

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as the recently leaked draft opinion suggests, arguments over how to regulate abortion will move from the courts to the legislatures, in Washington and 50 state capitals. Many critics of the decision, and even some of its defenders — I find myself in both camps — say this is where the debate belongs.

I wish I could agree. But I am not optimistic that America’s legislatures, as they actually exist, will guide the country to a better outcome.

The case for a legislative solution stems from the idea that it was a mistake for the court to arrogate such an intensely political issue to itself. When basic values are contested, they should be settled democratically, not by judicial fiat. Overturning Roe will therefore force legislatures to do their job, promoting discussion and compromise, instead of freezing a bitter, unresolved conflict in place for half a century.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that abortion implicates fundamental rights and liberties — those of women and (according to your moral convictions) the unborn. Understandings of fundamental rights and liberties should indeed be enshrined in constitutions: That’s what constitutions are for. But they should be written and amended through a representative process, not by judges.

Ideally, that process would give rise to a sufficiently strong consensus about rights and liberties, which would then shape the constitution, which judges would then apply to constrain the day-to-day actions of legislative majorities.

Ireland offers an example of how such a process can work. In 2018, the citizens of a rapidly secularizing country voted by referendum to change the constitution so that it no longer said a fetus has a right to life. Legislation to regulate abortions was henceforth allowed, and parliament passed a law permitting them to be carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or later if the health of the mother was at serious risk. Voters supported the amendment by a two-to-one margin.

The new law — preserving, by the way, restrictions that most U.S. abortion-rights campaigners would regard as intolerable — also commanded wide support. Controversy on the issue hasn’t ended, but it’s milder than in the U.S., and ordinary semi-functional politics resumed.

Is that the model? Such resolution is unimaginable in the US — partly because amending the Constitution is impossibly difficult, but even more because the country is more closely and more furiously divided on the underlying moral issue.

Consider one likely scenario if (and when?) Roe is overturned. The most liberal states would provide abortion pretty much on demand. The conservative states would impose outright bans. Those in middle would strike a balance.

Whatever you think of that prospect, it’s no formula for constitutional stability or a more civil style of politics. Abortion policy, remember, implicates fundamental rights and liberties — rights and liberties that are, or should be, encoded in the Constitution. Remember too that Americans like nothing so much as litigation, which will require the involvement of the courts.

So every new effort to regulate or deregulate abortion will face legal challenge. Either this Supreme Court or one of its successors will be pressed to intervene. Overturning Roe v. Wade settles no constitutional aspect of the controversy. In fact, it militates against constitutional stability, both by further calling the court’s political independence into question and by repudiating the presumption of deference to precedent.

The outlook for calmer politics is no more promising. The controversy over abortion will most likely intensify. Positions on abortion and every other tribally divisive issue will harden. As the battle between Right and Wrong rages on every front, an increasingly polarized political system will indulge extremism, reject moderation on principle and leave the larger part of an exhausted electorate disenfranchised. No justice, no peace, as they say.

Abortion has crippled U.S. politics not because the Supreme Court presumed to hoist the issue away from legislators, but because the American system of government is in thrall to true believers who see any kind of compromise as defeat. A polity committed to this principle cannot settle, as Ireland and most other countries in Europe have, for muddled outcomes that acknowledge moral complexity.

So I’m afraid I can’t quite buy the notion that America’s politicians will do better than the judiciary on this issue. Right now I see no sign that they are interested in anything but deepening America’s divisions, on abortion and everything else, for partisan gain.



(Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics. Previously, he was deputy editor of the Economist and chief Washington commentator for the Financial Times.)
Sunoverbeach Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
Hormel buys Seuss' rights.
Revised children's book hits stores:
"Eat Green Eggs and SPAM."
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12