Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

The US Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those of you who have been following the recent decisions of the US supreme court, I thought it might be nice to have a topic where people could vent, post questions, or share concerns. I, fo

Based America Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution. Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

Tell us more about how the Kulaks deserved it.  And tell us who is currently trying to restrict ownership of guns to minorities today.

Posted Images

This is what happens when you build a country on the values of white supremacy, genocide, patriarchy, and bourgeois "democracy." Eventually the facade of the founding father's "vision" (As if they genuinely gave a shit about the common white worker, much less enslaved Black people, disenfranchised women, and indigenous people whose very land they squatted in as tresspassers) of a liberal democracy fades away and the true colors of capitalism show. 

Edited by Ms. Tito (see edit history)
Link to comment

We’re pretty sure we’re gonna have to leave our state because of everything that’s been going on and what the Supreme Court is planning to do in the future. (Overturning the right to contraceptives will give our state the ability to ban the hormones I need, and there’s no doubt in my mind that they will do that.) 

We’re really just not safe here. Something pretty bad happened recently, and when we went to the police with video evidence, the cops just laughed at us and refused to do anything.  But hey, the Supreme Court already ruled that the police don’t have an obligation to help anybody, so I guess that’s cool.  

Moving just isn’t simple, we need the money and the time to do it. We’re both going to work extra hard, not buy anything other than necessities, and we’re planning to sell everything we own that’s not completely essential to us on eBay or someplace, just in case we DO have to leave. We’ll also hopefully get a decent amount for our house (we’re really regretting all the work we did on it since it’s looking more and more like we’re just gonna have to leave it after all that). But, he’ll need to find a new job wherever we go, I’ll have the jobs I do remotely and can continue doing anywhere, but I’ll need to re establish my photography stuff in the new place. 

And then there’s the cats and lizard. Neither of us has ever moved a long distance with animals before, no idea how to transport them in a car for so long safely. 

We keep going back and forth on if we want to leave or stay and hope it gets better, he seems slightly more optimistic than me but I just don’t see it getting better. November elections are going to be a shitshow, and then we have until next September before new policies are put in that will likely revoke more of our rights. 

My aunt who lives up north has actually offered to house us if something goes really wrong and we have to get out fast. But, if that’s what it comes to we will have to leave everything that’s most important to us— all the artwork I’ve made over the years, all our pets, his music collection…— and that’s going to be heartbreaking. 

So. He’s hoping November goes better than I think it’s going to, and I’m hoping we can get out together on our own terms before shit gets worse. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, secretomoact said:

We’re pretty sure we’re gonna have to leave our state because of everything that’s been going on and what the Supreme Court is planning to do in the future. (Overturning the right to contraceptives will give our state the ability to ban the hormones I need, and there’s no doubt in my mind that they will do that.) 

We’re really just not safe here. Something pretty bad happened recently, and when we went to the police with video evidence, the cops just laughed at us and refused to do anything.  But hey, the Supreme Court already ruled that the police don’t have an obligation to help anybody, so I guess that’s cool.  

Moving just isn’t simple, we need the money and the time to do it. We’re both going to work extra hard, not buy anything other than necessities, and we’re planning to sell everything we own that’s not completely essential to us on eBay or someplace, just in case we DO have to leave. We’ll also hopefully get a decent amount for our house (we’re really regretting all the work we did on it since it’s looking more and more like we’re just gonna have to leave it after all that). But, he’ll need to find a new job wherever we go, I’ll have the jobs I do remotely and can continue doing anywhere, but I’ll need to re establish my photography stuff in the new place. 

And then there’s the cats and lizard. Neither of us has ever moved a long distance with animals before, no idea how to transport them in a car for so long safely. 

We keep going back and forth on if we want to leave or stay and hope it gets better, he seems slightly more optimistic than me but I just don’t see it getting better. November elections are going to be a shitshow, and then we have until next September before new policies are put in that will likely revoke more of our rights. 

My aunt who lives up north has actually offered to house us if something goes really wrong and we have to get out fast. But, if that’s what it comes to we will have to leave everything that’s most important to us— all the artwork I’ve made over the years, all our pets, his music collection…— and that’s going to be heartbreaking. 

So. He’s hoping November goes better than I think it’s going to, and I’m hoping we can get out together on our own terms before shit gets worse. 

I'm considering fleeing the country. 

Link to comment

@LifeIsStrange Definitely not my kind of anarchist. Every anarchist I know is a devoted feminist, anti-racist, pro-LGBTQ+ and generally friendly person who just happens to loathe authority and think that simply working together without being coerced is the ideal basic groundwork for society. We're not quite 'non-violent', since we view it as a tool that has a place in relevant contexts, but we generally reserve it for when the other options have been exhausted.

To elucidate; we view enforcement of authority by state and corporate entities as violence, as it deprives somebody of something and they are not fully compensated. Undoing the Roe v Wade ruling is violent by definition, but so is even having society threaten you with violence/imprisonment/fines for noncompliance with those hierarchically defined mechanisms of state (Prisons, police, etc.)

It's not "anarchy is no rules", it's instead "Anarchy means we make rules together and apply them equally to everybody, while allowing for flexibility based on context and interpretation that do not fit a narrow legal definition." Within current society, you can visibly see the rich treated better than the poor, the white treated better than the black, and so on. There is statistical validation for the idea that laws disproportionately affect those worst off socio-economically speaking.

"Burning down" the status quo is less literal with me and my comrades, and is more, "Take what exists, destroy what hurts people, replace the rest and build new things that are needed."

In short, we're peace-loving hippies who preach compassion, free love, an end to oppression, and want every single human being on earth to be fed, watered, clothed, housed, healthy and happy. Even our political opponents, even the most foul people deserve to be treated at a human baseline of dignity and respect.

That said, we don't roll over and die when attacked. "An Injury to One is an Injury to All!" is an old slogan of ours. So we fight. In the face of the SCOTUS decision(s, there are more forthcoming >.<) we circumvent unjust laws and help people at great risk to our own wellbeing because it's the right thing to do. If that means smuggling pills in to let women retain the bodily autonomy regardless of legality, we'd do it. If it meant having to fight nazis in the street with sticks, bike locks, shields and boots, we'd do it. If it means going undercover in hate groups to rip all of their informational secrets away and sending it to the FBI, we'd do it. (Not happily, we hate the Feds because the FBI has been involved in framing and murdering us before, but white supremacists are klan/nazi fuckers so we can stomach it.)

If voting can affect change in a context, we generally do it. It's when there is no effect that we won't do it. That's where work strikes, traffic disruption, sit ins, noise bombardment, humiliation and shaming come in. (The last two primarily done via taking something contradictory or inflammatory an idiot has said and projecting it onto the side of a large building with a side comparison to what they 'claim' they stand for.)

And more, of course. Diversity of tactics gets the goods, and direct action gets the goods.



That said, considering a vote for a third party a betrayal is... Dangerous shit. In almost every modern liberal democracy, there are at least three major blocs that have some overlap and work together. Coalition governments, with minority governments having to deal with allied opposition who can block their proposals, and so on.

The US does not have that. It has "Us, and THEM." This blind loyalty and "swallow your bile and vote for the least awful of two shitty options" has essentially ruined any chance at institutional shifts in ruling power unless people vote third part en masse. Essentially, you're collectively ruining your ability to get a better deal because a non-standard option is seen as betrayal.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, LizJWetting said:

I'm not American, but to be honest I've reached a level of cynicism where seeing this sort of thing happen in the US just doesn't even really surprise me that much any more.  I rather expected the Roe vs. Wade ruling to end this way, and I'm certain that the US will never do anything to solve their gun problem. There are some things about the US that still appeal to me, mostly the sense of space and wilderness that you just can't really find in a tiny island where I'm from, but the people and politics of the place? Yeah that really doesn't appeal at all, I must admit. Having said that, every country does have their own problems of some kind.

Well it depends a lot on what state you're in, fortunately i live in a blue state so things are pretty good here for the most part, but red states and certain areas in battleground states are pretty miserable to live in if you're not a god-fearing gun-loving conservative.

@Darksyn, i'd personally argue voting third-party is itself FAR more dangerous then calling it a betrayal is considering all those Bernie Bros are a big part of the reason Drumpf got elected in the first place. Not voting third-party en-masse isn't ruining anything, besides it's not like the third-party choices have been that great anyways(don't even get me started on Jill Stein, ugh). It's not blind-loyalty so much as being practical and realistic, look Biden wasn't my first choice either(more like my fourth) but I knew damn well not voting for him wouldn't have solved anything or been the least bit productive so I voted for him and don't regret doing so one bit.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment

Just to add; there is a precedent for impeaching Supreme Court justices. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the early 1800s for "allowing his partisan leanings to cloud his opinions on the court," that's something that is assuredly going on in the modern Court.

 

While it seems like the worlds great powers (The US, UK, Russia, China) are rushing to see who collapses first, the fight in the US isn't necessarily over just quite yet.

What a fun decade the world has in store for it!

Link to comment

I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm pretty sure Justice Thomas's comments were in dicta in a concurring opinion, meaning they aren't binding.  Potentially persuasive authority, but not binding.  However, if substantive due process rights were reduced as a judicial theory, we'd need to actually get around to amending the constitution as this country did for the Nineteenth Amendment, to create more airtight rights. 

Roe was always going to be subject to litigation attacks because of the inherent weaknesses in the theory under which it was brought.  https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit. 

I wouldn't be surprised if litigation advocacy groups are already working on bringing cases based upon an Equal Protection theory to redevelop this right.  Of course, the appellate process will depend on SCOTUS's willingness to hear it. 

We have methods of creating further rights in this country, but they are more difficult to establish on a national level.  In the meantime, the state in which you live may become more relevant if SCOTUS pursues a textualist constitutional philosophy, which it has done in the past.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, LizJWetting said:

I'm not American, but to be honest I've reached a level of cynicism where seeing this sort of thing happen in the US just doesn't even really surprise me that much any more.  I rather expected the Roe vs. Wade ruling to end this way, and I'm certain that the US will never do anything to solve their gun problem. There are some things about the US that still appeal to me, mostly the sense of space and wilderness that you just can't really find in a tiny island where I'm from, but the people and politics of the place? Yeah that really doesn't appeal at all, I must admit. Having said that, every country does have their own problems of some kind.

Larger countries like the US, Russia, China, Canada, Brazil, and even groups of smaller countries like all of Scandinavia do have pretty great wilderness. Wilderness? Wildernesses? Idk. 

9 hours ago, dabboi said:

Just to add; there is a precedent for impeaching Supreme Court justices. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the early 1800s for "allowing his partisan leanings to cloud his opinions on the court," that's something that is assuredly going on in the modern Court.

 

While it seems like the worlds great powers (The US, UK, Russia, China) are rushing to see who collapses first, the fight in the US isn't necessarily over just quite yet.

What a fun decade the world has in store for it!

China is nowhere near collapsing. I think it's just the US, UK, and Russia. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, jc22jc said:

Based America

Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution.

Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

This comment makes no sense.

 

9 minutes ago, jc22jc said:

Based America

Did you mean to say that you are based in America? That you are not based in America?  Simply saying "Based America" doesn't mean anything.  It isn't even a whole thought, let alone a sentence.

 

10 minutes ago, jc22jc said:

Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution.

How do you figure this is true?  The recent supreme court decisions I cited in my original post seem to be not very constitutional.  The 4th and 14th amendments establish a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, something that has been stripped  away now with overturning Roe v. Wade.  Likewise, if a person has no recourse if their Miranda rights are violated, how can those even be considered to be rights in the first place?  And, with public money now being required to fund religious education in Maine, that seems to be a violation of the concept of the separation of church and state, which comes from the establishment clause of the first amendment.

 

16 minutes ago, jc22jc said:

Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

What exactly are you trying to say here?  That a supreme court justice is ignoring the constitution and willing to throw away the rights of millions of people as some kind of retribution?  Or that a justice should do that?  We better make sure to be nice enough to the justices so they don't throw out the constitution and take everyone's rights away?  This is absolutely absurd.

Link to comment

A few thoughts come to mind almost immediately.

1. As partisan as it was, the overturning of Roe v Wade could not actually ban abortion nationwide. (Which is why the GOP politicians who forgot what year it was started talking about pushing for a nationwide ban immediately.) All it did was allow states to pass restrictive laws without federal intervention. And this is important because states can be forced to backpedal on odious laws. It's happened recently with stuff like anti-trans "bathroom bills" but it's also happened historically as well; states that refused to adopt a 55 mph speed limit were threatened with the loss of funding for federal highways, which is an economic double whammy that hits especially large and / or populous states very hard.

2. The blatant partisanship of this decision has done what the GOP has tried very hard not do during this whole "pack the court" scheme. It's broken any illusion that the justices were doing anything but trying to push their own ideologies, in clear defiance of established precedent and the very idea of rule of law. (Not to mention perjuring themselves during confirmation hearings.) Compounding that problem is that the GOP now has to deal with one of the most emotionally charged wedge issues in American politics during an election year, only this time they have to do it on the defensive. There are already frantic memos trying to coordinate everyone's responses and strategy.

3. The court has been ignored in the past. Andrew Jackson may not have actually said "John Marshal has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" but FDR definitely played hardball with the supreme court during the depression when they tried to rule Social Security as unconstitutional. Whether Biden tries to do something like that or not, the Pentagon has already said that they will continue to provide abortions and reproductive health care to the military, and that is notable because military service members can be stationed or housed anywhere in the country, so the authority of the central federal government does overrule state law in this area. This ties back into point number one in the sense that the Pentagon can threaten to close bases in a state that tries to pick a fight on this issue, which also stands to cause some major economic damage to any state that doesn't play ball.

4. TVGuy mentioned a possible legal challenger to the very idea of subordinate federal agencies, not permitting congress to delegate authority and threatening to grind the entire machinery of the federal government to a halt. I think that if the court tried to do such a thing, that would NOT be the result; it would basically be treated like those lawsuits against income tax or the Sovereign Citizen claims that seek to defy the power of the government to curtail individual liberties, tossed out on the basis of the central premise being frivolous and disingenuous, even if it originated from the highest court in the land. On the other hand, I can see individual people and state governments taking the court's claims as a get out of jail free pass for doing all sorts of stuff, which could do as much damage to the country as another Civil War... or be treated as the first shot in said war. (More on that later.)

5. It's been noted that midterm elections tend to favor the party not in power, but the fact that the Democrats have such a narrow majority, and two senators that do not play well with others, indicates that they don't actually have power. Whether or not that kind of distinction will influence people at the polls remains to be seen, but refer back to point two for how the GOP is now fighting a defensive messaging war when under other circumstances they would be pushing the offensive. Whether or not additional Democratic senators could or would accomplish anything is an open question, but the alternative is allowing the GOP to gain more ground, with predictable and catastrophic consequences.

6. A lot of the GOP, either on the official politician level or the man on the street, seems to be pushing for another Civil War. If one does start, it will go about as well for them as the last one, for the following reasons: First, warfare of any sort is a numbers game, and they don't have the numbers. Polls put support for abortion access in some form, as well as various progressive political and social policies, as much higher than those who oppose them. I think the abortion access poll specifically was in the 80% range in favor. Of those people who agree with the partisan rulings from the SCOTUS right now, not all of them will be willing to sacrifice what they have on the altar of of their ideology, for the same reason that not everyone who is in favor of abortion access is out protesting the Roe v Wade repeal. Second, and there's no way to say it delicately, a lot of the people who might have supported and fought in such a Civil War five years ago are no longer in a position or a condition to do anything now, either because Covid has fucked them up, or because it killed them outright. Third, and this is the part where my experience in survivalist / disaster prepper / retreater circles grants me particular insight, those who actually concern themselves with the nitty gritty details of warfare emphasize infantry activity over all else. The emphasis is on rifles and long arms; anti armor / anti vehicle countermeasures are limited to roadblocks and IEDs, while anti air measures are almost unheard of. Every one of these chucklefucks thinks they're going to be going in guns blazing, sniping from a safe distance, or running people down in homemade technicals. Being vaporized by a missile from a drone doesn't factor into their power fantasy, so they don't even think to try to avoid it. Four, the threat of a Civil War taking the form of a nationwide insurgency misses the admittedly unpleasant fact that we've been living in such a world for a while now, from school shootings to the January 6th capital attack. "Do what we want or we'll keep doing what we've been doing for decades," is a shitty threat at best, and an admission of weakness at worst, because it implies they literally can't turn up the heat or speed things up any more than they already have.

I admit that's a lot of words for "a few" thoughts.

Link to comment

You've got some great analytical skills.  A great comment for a few thoughts.   Realistically,  all I see is a ton of fundraising by both sides,, empty rhetoric and more litigation. 

1 hour ago, DrBorderline said:

A few thoughts come to mind almost immediately.

1. As partisan as it was, the overturning of Roe v Wade could not actually ban abortion nationwide. (Which is why the GOP politicians who forgot what year it was started talking about pushing for a nationwide ban immediately.) All it did was allow states to pass restrictive laws without federal intervention. And this is important because states can be forced to backpedal on odious laws. It's happened recently with stuff like anti-trans "bathroom bills" but it's also happened historically as well; states that refused to adopt a 55 mph speed limit were threatened with the loss of funding for federal highways, which is an economic double whammy that hits especially large and / or populous states very hard.

2. The blatant partisanship of this decision has done what the GOP has tried very hard not do during this whole "pack the court" scheme. It's broken any illusion that the justices were doing anything but trying to push their own ideologies, in clear defiance of established precedent and the very idea of rule of law. (Not to mention perjuring themselves during confirmation hearings.) Compounding that problem is that the GOP now has to deal with one of the most emotionally charged wedge issues in American politics during an election year, only this time they have to do it on the defensive. There are already frantic memos trying to coordinate everyone's responses and strategy.

3. The court has been ignored in the past. Andrew Jackson may not have actually said "John Marshal has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" but FDR definitely played hardball with the supreme court during the depression when they tried to rule Social Security as unconstitutional. Whether Biden tries to do something like that or not, the Pentagon has already said that they will continue to provide abortions and reproductive health care to the military, and that is notable because military service members can be stationed or housed anywhere in the country, so the authority of the central federal government does overrule state law in this area. This ties back into point number one in the sense that the Pentagon can threaten to close bases in a state that tries to pick a fight on this issue, which also stands to cause some major economic damage to any state that doesn't play ball.

4. TVGuy mentioned a possible legal challenger to the very idea of subordinate federal agencies, not permitting congress to delegate authority and threatening to grind the entire machinery of the federal government to a halt. I think that if the court tried to do such a thing, that would NOT be the result; it would basically be treated like those lawsuits against income tax or the Sovereign Citizen claims that seek to defy the power of the government to curtail individual liberties, tossed out on the basis of the central premise being frivolous and disingenuous, even if it originated from the highest court in the land. On the other hand, I can see individual people and state governments taking the court's claims as a get out of jail free pass for doing all sorts of stuff, which could do as much damage to the country as another Civil War... or be treated as the first shot in said war. (More on that later.)

5. It's been noted that midterm elections tend to favor the party not in power, but the fact that the Democrats have such a narrow majority, and two senators that do not play well with others, indicates that they don't actually have power. Whether or not that kind of distinction will influence people at the polls remains to be seen, but refer back to point two for how the GOP is now fighting a defensive messaging war when under other circumstances they would be pushing the offensive. Whether or not additional Democratic senators could or would accomplish anything is an open question, but the alternative is allowing the GOP to gain more ground, with predictable and catastrophic consequences.

6. A lot of the GOP, either on the official politician level or the man on the street, seems to be pushing for another Civil War. If one does start, it will go about as well for them as the last one, for the following reasons: First, warfare of any sort is a numbers game, and they don't have the numbers. Polls put support for abortion access in some form, as well as various progressive political and social policies, as much higher than those who oppose them. I think the abortion access poll specifically was in the 80% range in favor. Of those people who agree with the partisan rulings from the SCOTUS right now, not all of them will be willing to sacrifice what they have on the altar of of their ideology, for the same reason that not everyone who is in favor of abortion access is out protesting the Roe v Wade repeal. Second, and there's no way to say it delicately, a lot of the people who might have supported and fought in such a Civil War five years ago are no longer in a position or a condition to do anything now, either because Covid has fucked them up, or because it killed them outright. Third, and this is the part where my experience in survivalist / disaster prepper / retreater circles grants me particular insight, those who actually concern themselves with the nitty gritty details of warfare emphasize infantry activity over all else. The emphasis is on rifles and long arms; anti armor / anti vehicle countermeasures are limited to roadblocks and IEDs, while anti air measures are almost unheard of. Every one of these chucklefucks thinks they're going to be going in guns blazing, sniping from a safe distance, or running people down in homemade technicals. Being vaporized by a missile from a drone doesn't factor into their power fantasy, so they don't even think to try to avoid it. Four, the threat of a Civil War taking the form of a nationwide insurgency misses the admittedly unpleasant fact that we've been living in such a world for a while now, from school shootings to the January 6th capital attack. "Do what we want or we'll keep doing what we've been doing for decades," is a shitty threat at best, and an admission of weakness at worst, because it implies they literally can't turn up the heat or speed things up any more than they already have.

I admit that's a lot of words for "a few" thoughts.

 

Link to comment

I'm not into politics much to be honest but I'll try to respond to this.

I'm an American from NJ and also have libertarian views. Yes that technically is right wing, but not in the "I love trump!" type of way. Instead it's more of a "The government needs to stay out of our lives" type of thing. 

The gun law thing was quite shocking in my opinion, as someone who is pro-gun, I think this change was needed. I'm all for tight background checks and having references for obtaining a firearms license. But after that, there should be nothing to stop you from carrying one, or using attachments. Self defense is a human right that belongs to all human beings. If guns are in the hands of evil, I need one too. And after that school shooting in Texas, I've lost faith in our police to protect us, especially since they were preventing other citizens with guns from entering the building to stop the shooter. To me that's just the government saying "You don't need guns to defend yourselves! The trained police will handle it for you! Except they won't and you aren't allowed to do anything yourself." Maybe if the man in the school was an unarmed black man the police would have sprinted in there...

As for the abortion issue, I'm torn. As much as I HATE abortions, I understand that allowing the states to ban them won't solve the problem. Americans will always find a way to be free, even if that means becoming a criminal, and I'd rather women get safe abortions than illegal and unsafe ones.

I might get slammed for my opinions, but that's okay. I'm all for free speech and I have to acknowledge that free speech goes both ways.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Gatto-Italiano said:

I'm not into politics much to be honest but I'll try to respond to this.

I'm an American from NJ and also have libertarian views. Yes that technically is right wing, but not in the "I love trump!" type of way. Instead it's more of a "The government needs to stay out of our lives" type of thing. 

The gun law thing was quite shocking in my opinion, as someone who is pro-gun, I think this change was needed. I'm all for tight background checks and having references for obtaining a firearms license. But after that, there should be nothing to stop you from carrying one, or using attachments. Self defense is a human right that belongs to all human beings. If guns are in the hands of evil, I need one too. And after that school shooting in Texas, I've lost faith in our police to protect us, especially since they were preventing other citizens with guns from entering the building to stop the shooter. To me that's just the government saying "You don't need guns to defend yourselves! The trained police will handle it for you! Except they won't and you aren't allowed to do anything yourself." Maybe if the man in the school was an unarmed black man the police would have sprinted in there...

As for the abortion issue, I'm torn. As much as I HATE abortions, I understand that allowing the states to ban them won't solve the problem. Americans will always find a way to be free, even if that means becoming a criminal, and I'd rather women get safe abortions than illegal and unsafe ones.

I might get slammed for my opinions, but that's okay. I'm all for free speech and I have to acknowledge that free speech goes both ways.

 

I am probably far more liberal than you, but I am not going to slam you for your opinions.  I can respect people who have a different ideology than I do, even if I disagree.  What I find myself unable to respect is complete ignorance, when people willfully choose to ignore the facts, or think that facts are a matter of what one chooses to believe is true.

For people who say they hate abortions, it seems to me they would want to work to build a society where abortions are less necessary.  Where easy access to contraceptives combined with societal support for children and parents make it so that very few women would ever find themselves in a situation where they would feel like an abortion is their only option.  That so many of the same people who are against abortions are also against social safety nets for families and access to contraceptives seems to suggest, at least to me, that they don't really care that much about these children, they just want to impose their own ideologies on others.

In terms of guns, I can't say that I am exactly pro-gun, but I do respect that the US constitution gives people the right to have them.  The gun isl that it nearly impossible to have a civil conversation about it. 

With all of our rights, the courts have upheld certain limitations to those rights.  Free speech, for example, doesn't let you threaten someone's life.  Certain speech that is harmful is also not protected, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  You may be considered innocent until proven guilty if you are accused of a crime, but a state's interest in protecting its citizens still allows them to put certain restrictions on you.  When it comes to gun rights, however, we have never determined where to draw that line, where the limitation should be.  Few people would argue that the right to bear arms means any random US citizen should be able to possess their own nuclear arsenal, for example.  We would probably agree that other large scale military hardware should also be off limits, or at least have serious restrictions, even though the 2nd amendment only references arms, but never defines what type of arms it is discussing. Should any and all guns ever invented, or that ever will be invented be included?  What about other kinds of weapons or explosives? 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Gatto-Italiano said:

As for the abortion issue, I'm torn. As much as I HATE abortions, I understand that allowing the states to ban them won't solve the problem. Americans will always find a way to be free, even if that means becoming a criminal, and I'd rather women get safe abortions than illegal and unsafe ones.

 

11 hours ago, TVGuy said:

For people who say they hate abortions, it seems to me they would want to work to build a society where abortions are less necessary.  Where easy access to contraceptives combined with societal support for children and parents make it so that very few women would ever find themselves in a situation where they would feel like an abortion is their only option.

I think most people who say they hate abortions forget that everybody hates abortions. Performing an abortion is as traumatizing as losing a child because that's exactly what is happening. From medical to financial challenges, from rape victims to prostitutes; nobody truly feels relieved or proud after doing it, even if doing it saves their lives.

I don't know why men and women in their menopause are making all these decisions. Even politically right-aligned women who claim they'd never do it still do it on occasion, making up excuses to call their situation special. There's a clear divide in ideology and reality.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Gatto-Italiano said:

I'm not into politics much to be honest but I'll try to respond to this.

I'm an American from NJ and also have libertarian views. Yes that technically is right wing, but not in the "I love trump!" type of way. Instead it's more of a "The government needs to stay out of our lives" type of thing. 

The gun law thing was quite shocking in my opinion, as someone who is pro-gun, I think this change was needed. I'm all for tight background checks and having references for obtaining a firearms license. But after that, there should be nothing to stop you from carrying one, or using attachments. Self defense is a human right that belongs to all human beings. If guns are in the hands of evil, I need one too. And after that school shooting in Texas, I've lost faith in our police to protect us, especially since they were preventing other citizens with guns from entering the building to stop the shooter. To me that's just the government saying "You don't need guns to defend yourselves! The trained police will handle it for you! Except they won't and you aren't allowed to do anything yourself." Maybe if the man in the school was an unarmed black man the police would have sprinted in there...

As for the abortion issue, I'm torn. As much as I HATE abortions, I understand that allowing the states to ban them won't solve the problem. Americans will always find a way to be free, even if that means becoming a criminal, and I'd rather women get safe abortions than illegal and unsafe ones.

I might get slammed for my opinions, but that's okay. I'm all for free speech and I have to acknowledge that free speech goes both ways.

 

I live in North East Texas behind the "Pine Curtain". I kinda feel like each State has different situations that are usually best addressed locally. I'm also a Libertarian on many issues and to the Right on many other issues.

The abortion issue could be resolved nationally by Congresspersons going on record with their vote on a national abortion law. With all the support from their constituents, it would surely and easily pass regardless of conservative stalling and objections. Many probably don't want to put their names on it and be accountable for their actions and vote though.  It would be so much more simpler to codify it into law, rather than be forced to rely on penumbra emanations of rights which aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

As it stands, SCOTUS did something our government rarely does; they gave up the "power" they created in 1963 by discovering rights that emanate around the penumbra of the Constitution and gave said "power" back to "The People", who live in these 50 "incubators of democracy", the 50 State incubators.

Abortions have always been a part of human existence, (pun intended) and aren't going away. I've never met a woman who was proud and shouted her abortion. In fact, at my age (57), women that I've dated who've had an abortion earlier in life seem to carry some of that baggage the rest of their lives and not particularly proud of doing that. Full disclosure: I'm divorced and don't have any children. I'm a guy and have never been pregnant.

 

As I said earlier, it seems that local citizens should decide how their communities are shaped.  As a Texan, we have "Open Carry" in public here.  It works well here and it's not unusual to see one in ten people with a pistol on their hip in public.  Walmart requests that a person not carry open in their stores, which is their right. So it gets a little confusing for some folks as to whether to put on a jacket or not. I can see it not working so well in New York, especially NYC, as it's a totally different social fabric there.  Those citizens should have the right to decide who has a perceived "need to carry concealed" there. I know that Fox's Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, and former resident Donald Trump have NY CHL permits. If those city/State officals feel comfortable in telling a subway car mechanic, waitress whose shift ends at 3AM, and others that they do not qualify, then that's their prerogative and the will of the voters there in their area.

I actually DO NOT usually carry a pistol into any business's since there are usually so many others who are packing heat.  If anything were to jump off, there's already plenty of firepower on the scene. This combined with the fact that I am a fan of black powder cap and ball revolvers, and have zero affection for a semi-automatic handgun at all. They just feel flimsy and not very powerful compared to the old-school six-guns. Most of my sidearms are frigging huge and weigh over four pounds and I'm not walking with all that on my hip. Picture the pair of 1847 Colt Walker Dragoons that Clint Eastwood used in "The Outlaw Jose Wales" and you'll see how cumbersome it would be. Those old guns and the fine reproductions thereof are a real blast to load and fire. They're as accurate and powerful as any modern firearm, but no gangbanger or cop would ever dream of carrying/using one...fun hobby though.

 

Different locations need to make their own rules governing themselves...the sheriff's response time to my house is about 30 minutes if they run code, but my response to an intruder is 1,375 feet per second. It isn't the same in a large metro area for sure.

 

Usually I say the quote from either Thoreau or Thos. Jefferson works well in many situations.

"The government which governs best, governs least".

And my own quote "you can not legislate morality".

And I hope they don't ever try to make loving omo illegal, because that's what I usually come here daily for.  Been a fan since I was a teen.

 

 

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, NotGraeme said:

I may be a not be American but I still know that the decisions the US Supreme Court has made in the past few days are going to be the beginning of its downfall. 

I'd say we're looking at a Yugoslavia scenario at best. 

 

At worst, a nuclear holocaust. 

Link to comment
On 7/1/2022 at 1:49 AM, LifeIsStrange said:

I don't believe it's going to go that far personally, i'm not quite willing to give into despair just yet.

Like I said earlier, both sides will try to use these issues for fundraising because they know that nothing makes a person part with their donations faster than emotions.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bot23243423 said:

Well I think it is bad but we cant really do anything except voting harder i guess.And since the election is still 4 month away I suggest you shouldnt think about it too much.

Unsure if you've seen my post earlier in the thread, but voting harder by itself will solve nothing if there is no grassroots support for protecting bodily autonomy for women, plus whatever else the SCOTUS decides to fuck with next.

Talking to a representative is fine and dandy, but if people aren't actively helping the women affected by this, they're blind to how little voting alone will ever do.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...