Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[GMDino]

(06-29-2022, 09:23 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Basically the woke crowd wants to throw every history book away, because no one who lived before about 1970 was not flawed in their thinking, so nothing ever accomplished is worth celebrating or remembering. 

Hyperbole much?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2022, 09:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's not to be "clever"...it's the truth.  He may have posted about a new constitution, that's neither here nor there...the tweet I shared reflected what I was trying to say about what was int he constitution and who it was about which is one reason abortion wasn't mentioned.
I agree there should be a law.  But I bet your salary that the police unions fight it tooth and nail, then there are the lawsuits and then it goes to the SC and they reject the "law" because they already said what they said.
Like trying to codify Roe v Wade when the gop just filibusters.  
It's not as easy as "there oughta be a law" sometimes.
But we agree it should have been left alone by the SC.  Then everyone has that right and we go right along.  

here is absolutely nothing that the Supreme Court said that would stop Ohio or Pennsylvania or whatever state from enacting a law.  There would be nothing remotely unconstitutional about a state making a law that mirrors Miranda even if Miranda were actually overturned.  

[BigPapaKain]

(06-29-2022, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I give Clarence's remarks about as much weight as I give Sotomayor's. Read the opinion, it clearly states it is about abortion and should not be used as precedence for other decisions about other matters. 

And if you believe them I have a bridge in Death Valley I'd love to sell you.

3 of the pieces of lying shit also said Roe was settled law and then tore it down.

If you want to believe the words of liars over the actions of liars be my guest. Don't choke on the sand you bury your head in, though.

[Sled21]

(06-29-2022, 09:29 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: And if you believe them I have a bridge in Death Valley I'd love to sell you.

3 of the pieces of lying shit also said Roe was settled law and then tore it down.

If you want to believe the words of liars over the actions of liars be my guest. Don't choke on the sand you bury your head in, though.

It was settled law. Then a new case came before them. No different than Plesse being settled law for decades, then being overuled in favor of Brown. I notice you haven't addressed Ruth Bader Ginsberg's writings about Roe..... she said it was a flawed decision as well, and she's the darling of the left, right? Oh wait, they are now cancelling her for not resigning earlier.....

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 09:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: It's the left's go to anytime they lose an argument. Racism and sexism. Every time.

What argument has "the left" lost here? 

(06-29-2022, 09:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I give Clarence's remarks about as much weight as I give Sotomayor's. Read the opinion, it clearly states it is about abortion and should not be used as precedence for other decisions about other matters. 

Do you think there is a chance that others might give Thomas' remarks more weight than Sotomayor's,

and set to work generating the cases which can over turn rights to contraception and same sex marriage? 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-29-2022, 09:32 AM)Sled21 Wrote: It was settled law. Then a new case came before them. No different than Plesse being settled law for decades, then being overuled in favor of Brown. I notice you haven't addressed Ruth Bader Ginsberg's writings about Roe..... she said it was a flawed decision as well, and she's the darling of the left, right? Oh wait, they are now cancelling her for not resigning earlier.....

So you're fine with judges lying under oath. Got it. I wish I could say I was surprised but again - I've seen your post history.

Why would I bring up RBG? She said it was flawed because she was smart enough to see how some sycophants could unravel it which is why she pushed for Congress to codify it. Just because she seen the writing on the wall when Federalist Society judges started getting SCotUS seats doesn't make her some pariah to me.

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Or, you know, its true that it was all written by white men who had their own agenda.

All these liberal women and people of color don't realize that 

white men don't let race or gender affect their legal reasoning. 

A court of nine liberal black women, however, could not be trusted to

represent the general interest.

[GMDino]

(06-29-2022, 09:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: here is absolutely nothing that the Supreme Court said that would stop Ohio or Pennsylvania or whatever state from enacting a law.  There would be nothing remotely unconstitutional about a state making a law that mirrors Miranda even if Miranda were actually overturned.  

I disagree. It will be up to the court to decide if the law is constitutional.  Same as with any abortion laws, I would thing.

And this court has already shown how they will rule on Miranda and abortion.

And states will use the Roe reversal to go after other rights and protections too.  I mean they would have anyway but now that have a court that will back them up.

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 09:29 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote:
And if you believe them I have a bridge in Death Valley I'd love to sell you.

3 of the pieces of lying shit also said Roe was settled law and then tore it down.

If you want to believe the words of liars over the actions of liars be my guest. Don't choke on the sand you bury your head in, though.

It's curious--trump supporters/defenders tend to take right wing legal reasoning at face value.

Voters id laws are not about race. 

Trump's Muslim ban wasn't about religion.

And neither was overturning Roe.

No, they're scrupulously adhering to Constitutional principles while setting aside their own political investments.

But shifty Dems who argue to expand civil rights/limit the filibuster are simply using the Constitution as a tool to gain power for themselves.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2022, 09:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree. It will be up to the court to decide if the law is constitutional.  Same as with any abortion laws, I would thing.

And this court has already shown how they will rule on Miranda and abortion.

And states will use the Roe reversal to go after other rights and protections too.  I mean they would have anyway but now that have a court that will back them up.

There's really no question on Miranda.  I don't really know what your disagreement is based on.    Ohio saying its police officers must give Miranda type warnings is about as benign as you can get.  Overturning Miranda wouldn't make it unconstitutional by any stretch.  

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 09:38 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So you're fine with judges lying under oath. Got it. I wish I could say I was surprised but again - I've seen your post history.

Why would I bring up RBG? She said it was flawed because she was smart enough to see how some sycophants could unravel it which is why she pushed for Congress to codify it. Just because she seen the writing on the wall when Federalist Society judges started getting SCotUS seats doesn't make her some pariah to me.

Excellent answer. Though I can imagine someone counter-arguing that God's law is above man's, so lying to accomplish God's work is ok for people who know what God wants.

Defenders of the court's recent ruling on Roe argue as if the whole point of the Federalist Society, and Repub presidents' reliance on its judgement for appointees, was simply to solidify the constitutional ground of laws. Like that's what people chant about at Trump rallies--"laws on solid precedent, laws on solid precedent!" as they demand their elected officials look into the coherence of legal reasoning, irrespective of religious and political belief. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2022, 09:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Posing ethical questions in an unethical manner?

I'll put forward my own answer to these interesting questions.

1. From a viewpoint based upon deontological ethics and the liberal concept of universal individual human rights, yes, being a slave owner does automatically make one a horrible person. To contest that, while retaining the concept of universal human rights, one would have to adopt some form of situational ethics, perhaps combined with a CRT approach which roots racist behavior in institutions rather than random individuals who just choose to behave badly.  Embracing some form of illiberal ethics, one might conclude slave-owning isn't bad, so people practicing it aren't "horrible persons." I don't think there are other options. Which of these would you choose?  

2. Whether being a slave owner invalidates "all [one's] beliefs and ideals" depends on which and what kind beliefs/ideals we are talking about, and for whom. If Pythagoras owned slaves that would not invalidate the Pythagorean theorem. Hitler was a "horrible person" according to most Americans, but if he invented peanut butter that wouldn't make peanut butter a bad idea. 

3. Apparently, slave owning can "taint" at least SOME things "you do in your life time." E.g., if one claims universal human rights as an ideal, and founds a government based upon that ideal, but one's investment in slavery leads one to prevent realization of that ideal to retain one's human "property," there is some "taint" there. Also, one can be ok with slave-owning without actually owning slaves, and that can similarly "taint" one's behavior, especially voting behavior. I guess the answer is "no, it might not 'taint everything'" but it certainly can taint somethings, especially if pro-slavers construct law. So the question is whether and which might be tainted.

Thank you for actually having the courage to reply.  Now how does all that relate to Muhammed?

[Dill]

(06-28-2022, 09:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent post.  Don't expect a coherent answer though, he'll just dodge and obfuscate before taking his ball and going home again.

Did the founders want legislation to be decided by a simple majority vote in their new Constitution? 

What was their intent in that regard?

(06-29-2022, 10:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for actually having the courage to reply.  Now how does all that relate to Muhammed?

Speaking of "courage," what is your answer to the question in #1--

Which of the three options do you choose? 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2022, 04:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Did the founders want legislation to be decided by a simple majority vote in their new Constitution? 

What was their intent in that regard?



Speaking of "courage," what is your answer to the question in #1--

Which of the three options do you choose? 

Are you talking about the filibuster?  If you are, please don't pretend Democrats haven't championed it for its entire history until now.  

[Sled21]

(06-29-2022, 05:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you talking about the filibuster?  If you are, please don't pretend Democrats haven't championed it for its entire history until now.  

I fully expect the Dems to do away with the filibuster just in time to lose control of both the House and Senate, then whine because they want it back....

[BigPapaKain]

(06-29-2022, 05:44 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I fully expect the Dems to do away with the filibuster just in time to lose control of both the House and Senate, then whine because they want it back....

You use more emojis than my niece.

She's 12.

[Sled21]

(06-29-2022, 05:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You use more emojis than my niece.

She's 12.

How long have you been dating?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2022, 05:44 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I fully expect the Dems to do away with the filibuster just in time to lose control of both the House and Senate, then whine because they want it back....

Yes they will whine if that happens. I've always been against the filibuster no matter who is in power.  You lose an election then you live with the consequences and do better next election.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2022, 04:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Did the founders want legislation to be decided by a simple majority vote in their new Constitution? 

What was their intent in that regard?



Speaking of "courage," what is your answer to the question in #1--

Which of the three options do you choose? 

I'm sorry, I looked in the first post and I don't see the three choice question that you're referring to.

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sorry, I looked in the first post and I don't see the three choice question that you're referring to.

The question addressed in #1 of my previous post was

 Does being a slave owner automatically make you a horrible person?  

There are three possible standpoints from which to answer that question:

1. From a viewpoint based upon deontological ethics and the liberal concept of universal individual human rights, yes, being a slave owner does automatically make one a horrible person. 

2. To contest that [i.e. horribleness], while retaining the concept of universal human rights, one would have to adopt some form of situational ethics, perhaps combined with a CRT approach which roots racist behavior in institutions rather than random individuals who just choose to behave badly.  

3. Embracing some form of illiberal ethics, one might conclude slave-owning isn't bad, so people practicing it aren't "horrible persons." I don't think there are other options. Which of these would you choose?  

#2 primarily involves situational ethics. The CRT reference is added as a possible help to sorting that out, not as essential to #2.

So I am wondering which option you might choose.

I have, by the way, answered this sort of question before, perhaps several times, the gist of which was, before I answer any such question, I imagine myself in the subject's time, with his/her resources.  I'm a sincere admirer of Washington. Would I think differently about slavery were I raised in his household? Being a materialist, I don't have grounds for supposing I would be "special," gifted with ideals outside history, and respond with outrage, like a 21st century leftist-without-quotation-marks. 

So I don't "blame" Washington the way I would censure, say, Trump. But then I do strive to understand how W's. race and gender views were built into a system of government whose principles are otherwise remarkable.  Recognizing that history is about fixing the present, continuing an Enlightenment legacy, not blaming dead guys who cannot hear me anyway. Blaming is not analysis, but many people cannot tell the difference.