Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 10:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not arguing that abortion itself is a right. I am arguing that criminalizing abortion restricts someone's liberties. You know, that whole "life, liberty, property" that is mentioned in the Fifth Amendment that one shall not be deprived of without due process (should have mentioned the amendment earlier, forgot I hadn't).

Ahh, ok.  Yes, I can see that argument, and it's honestly a much better one than abortion being a right under the 14th. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you live in a leaning red state and I live in the deepest blue one in the union.  Hence the difference.


No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.  For you to be outraged about McConnell denying Garland his seat you have to disagree with his argument for doing so.  If you do, which you do, then you have to, merely by dint of logical consistency, have to agree that appointing Barrett when RBG died was the correct and proper way to do things.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say he was wrong one time and wrong the other, they are mutually exclusive options.  Well, I should say you absolutely can, as long as you don't mind being a complete hypocrite, just like Mitch.  Hence, based solely on logic, the accusation of a "stolen seat" can only encompass one position, not two.

Scalia died in February. 269 days before the election. RBG died in September. 46 days before the election.

Apples and oranges. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-03-2022, 10:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Scalia died in February. 269 days before the election. RBG died in September. 46 days before the election.

Apples and oranges. 

So the Obama nomination was in the early stages and Coney-Barrett was confirmed late term.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 10:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Scalia died in February. 269 days before the election. RBG died in September. 46 days before the election.

Apples and oranges. 

No, it isn't.  But I get why you're trying to claim as such.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 10:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it isn't.  But I get why you're trying to claim as such.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 10:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 10:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

That is literally what ACB was doing when she became a judge for the very first time in 2017. 

LOL and that makes me realize she wasn't even a judge when when the Garland BS happened. JFC.

[CJD]

(05-03-2022, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wanted to add this as the rage fueled hyperbole machine is in high gear.  There are claims that same sex marriage is next on the chopping black, of course assuming the final draft of this decision matches the leak.  Allow me to say this.  While I don't disagree with the Roe decision I always considered the connection between it and the 14th amendment to be tenuous.  At the very least, certainly not the firmest foundation ever.  Same sex marriage is not the same in that regard, at all.  Same sex marriage is firmly and easily grounded in the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Constitution.  It's in zero danger.  Of course, people will use this doomsday scenario to stoke further outrage and mobilization, but this one is just not grounded in any kind of logical fact.

Yea, tying the right to abortion to the 14th amendment always felt like a "duct tape fix" more than anything. I always thought the Democrats would eventually get it its own amendment or at least find a better place for it somehow, but they either never bothered or didn't try hard enough. And now it's likely being revoked (on a federal level).

The silver lining of this whole thing is that we can at least stop claiming that the Supreme Court is apolitical. We've known that wasn't true for years, if not decades, now, but this is the nail in the coffin for those still in denial. This opinion, should it move forward, is about as blatant a tell as you'll ever see that the conservative justices were selected specifically to overturn Roe v Wade. Now we can look back and watch compilation videos of all the conservative justices saying during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is established precedent (which was actually strengthened when it was re-affirmed in 1992) and that they have no intention, agenda or desire to overturn it and just shake our heads. This is the culmination of decades of Republican maneuvering coming to a head, after the public was told over and over again that anyone who thought this might happen were just fear mongering (Like the people who chose not to vote in 2016 or voted 3rd party because they wanted Bernie instead of Hillary).

Ah well. You live and you learn. Let's just hope the Democrats have a strong showing in November. Who knows what other rights the Republicans will attempt to dismantle if they gain the majorities in the legislative branch.

[CJD]

(05-03-2022, 09:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm more bemused at a political party acting in the interests of 20% of people, yet gearing up to clean house in the midterms.  It doesn't add up, but man, you have to hand it to republicans...I feel like they could get their way even if 90% of voters were against them.  They get shit done.

Gerrymandering has a lot to do with it in regards to the house. If a state with 5 districts is 50% red, 50% blue but you stack the 50% blue in one or two districts, you can get 4 (or maybe even all 5) seats despite having half the people's vote. There are some pretty wonky looking districts all made with the intent of packing voters together to minimize their impact on the construction of the house. 

The Senate is stilted because it gives every state equivalent representation so it's inherently not designed to represent the voice of the majority, but rather the voice of the minority.

You could make an argument either way about whether or not the Senate is a valuable institution, but the gerrymandering is obvious tampering that I wish we could get rid of. They actually struck down the redistricting of Ohio back in 2020 because the Republicans made it way too obvious what they were doing. Looks like the Ohio Supreme Court just keeps rejecting the maps that the Republicans are sending in due to repeated gerrymandering attempts.

Combine these two problems with the whole electoral college problem and you got 3 ways minority rule is essentially baked into the system.

Some may call it "systemic." :)

[CJD]

(05-03-2022, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.  For you to be outraged about McConnell denying Garland his seat you have to disagree with his argument for doing so.  If you do, which you do, then you have to, merely by dint of logical consistency, have to agree that appointing Barrett when RBG died was the correct and proper way to do things.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say he was wrong one time and wrong the other, they are mutually exclusive options.  Well, I should say you absolutely can, as long as you don't mind being a complete hypocrite, just like Mitch.  Hence, based solely on logic, the accusation of a "stolen seat" can only encompass one position, not two.

This video may be a little too radical left for you, but I think it has a really interesting introduction about this whole "you can't say they were wrong and then try to do it too" argument and I'd like to know what your thoughts on it are (you can stop after 6 minutes if you don't want to watch the rest. although the rest of the video does come back to this concept of "values neutral governance" quite a bit, so it may be worth the whole watch).

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

[BFritz21]

(05-03-2022, 08:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So every woman you've ever met or talked politics with is either a republican or a democrat who would gladly be a republican if only republicans were pro-choice?

(05-03-2022, 08:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I find it sad that you find hilarity in an attack on women's bodily autonomy.

The party of small government, folks.

(05-03-2022, 08:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, let's rid ourselves of anecdotal evidence and turn to something with a little bit of scientific rigor: https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx




So while I may be underestimating the degree to which this occurs towards Democrats, it is the Republican/anti-choice voters that are more likely to see it as a "must."

For the record, single-issue voters on either side just piss me off. But that's me.

Quick question for all of you: how far into a pregnancy do you think it is still ok to terminate a pregnancy?

[hollodero]

Quick question, just so I understand the implications. After this Roe vs. Wade and all the follow-up rulings are overturned, could a state pass a law that declares abortion illegal under all circumstances, including rape? Could a state force a mother to carry out her pregnancy even if it will end her own life?

Rachel Maddow told me just that, but I do not exactly trust her. Is it true?

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, ok.  Yes, I can see that argument, and it's honestly a much better one than abortion being a right under the 14th. 

See, I lump a lot of things under the 14th. The 14th essentially created a new constitution under which the states were beholden to the same restrictions as the federal government. So any time there is a question of states restricting liberties then it falls under the 14th by default.

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2022, 05:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: Quick question, just so I understand the implications. After this Roe vs. Wade and all the follow-up rulings are overturned, could a state pass a law that declares abortion illegal under all circumstances, including rape? Could a state force a mother to carry out her pregnancy even if it will end her own life?

Rachel Maddow told me just that, but I do not exactly trust her. Is it true?

Depends on the final majority opinion. A lot of what you see and hear right now is speculation. It could open the door for complete prohibition, or it could shorten the window.

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2022, 01:13 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Quick question for all of you: how far into a pregnancy do you think it is still ok to terminate a pregnancy?

Morally, I do not find it ok to terminate a pregnancy. Legally, there should be no line.

[hollodero]

(05-04-2022, 06:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Depends on the final majority opinion. A lot of what you see and hear right now is speculation. It could open the door for complete prohibition, or it could shorten the window.

I understand it's speculation at this point. I just wanted to know if these specific speculations are grounded in some reality or are just fearmongering. 
The more I get into it, the more it seems it is not just said fearmongering.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-04-2022, 01:13 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Quick question for all of you: how far into a pregnancy do you think it is still ok to terminate a pregnancy?

Circumstantial, as all things relating to individuals. What is acceptable for one may not be okay for another depending on any number of variables.

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2022, 06:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: I understand it's speculation at this point. I just wanted to know if these specific speculations are grounded in some reality or are just fearmongering. 
The more I get into it, the more it seems it is not just said fearmongering.

Oh, yeah, there are some legislatures that would absolutely pass laws that criminalize any and all abortions if given the chance.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 10:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Scalia died in February. 269 days before the election. RBG died in September. 46 days before the election.

Apples and oranges. 

No. It is the prerogative of the sitting POTUS to nominate a justice and the Senate should confirm them if they are qualified. McConnell is a piece of shit for the way he did things, but you can't call him a hypocrite for what he did if you say he should have not held the vote on ACB. We can certainly point out his terribleness and how he has no moral compass, but he did what he actually should have done with ACB.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 12:19 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Gerrymandering has a lot to do with it in regards to the house. If a state with 5 districts is 50% red, 50% blue but you stack the 50% blue in one or two districts, you can get 4 (or maybe even all 5) seats despite having half the people's vote. There are some pretty wonky looking districts all made with the intent of packing voters together to minimize their impact on the construction of the house. 

The Senate is stilted because it gives every state equivalent representation so it's inherently not designed to represent the voice of the majority, but rather the voice of the minority.

You could make an argument either way about whether or not the Senate is a valuable institution, but the gerrymandering is obvious tampering that I wish we could get rid of. They actually struck down the redistricting of Ohio back in 2020 because the Republicans made it way too obvious what they were doing. Looks like the Ohio Supreme Court just keeps rejecting the maps that the Republicans are sending in due to repeated gerrymandering attempts.

Combine these two problems with the whole electoral college problem and you got 3 ways minority rule is essentially baked into the system.

Some may call it "systemic." :)

It's pretty wacky.  We tell people to get out and vote if they want a say and an initiative 20% of people support is under way while democrats control all branches of government because in 2016 their candidate only received 3 million more votes than the winner. 

Dont hate the player, hate the game I guess.