No way that will be the case.skatingfan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:40 pm The seat will almost certainly remain vacant until President Trump is reelected in 2024.
I think you underestimate the legal expertise required for the position. Yes, it's a political appointment in the sense that presidents pick nominees based on whether they tend to agree with their interpretation of the law, but it's still probably the most sophisticated role in the government. The fact that some recent nominees were less qualified doesn't take away from that.
We need to start calling Amy Coney Barrett Ofjesse.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:04 am Written by Margaret Atwood.
A total disgrace. But, and this does mean in anyway that I will ever agree with any decision banning abortion: what are the democrats and the women of the USA going to do? Because plenty of women will back this decision.
This is precisely what Coney Barret was chosen to do.
I'm more pessimistic than you are. The current division in this country is unreal. No one tries to see other points of view or considers compromise.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:51 am If THIS isn't a tipping point, this country is done for.
(the leak of it is the least of my concerns)
I've read thoughts similar to yours and I'm curious about exactly what a compromise would look like in some of the issues that were mentioned above. So let's take abortion. Would a compromise be something like a woman can only have an abortion if she is raped? Or only up to say 8 weeks along in her pregnancy? Because it seems to me that fundamentally either you believe in the idea that a woman has the right to control her reproductive choices and her body, or you don't.texasniteowl wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 2:28 amI'm more pessimistic than you are. The current division in this country is unreal. No one tries to see other points of view or considers compromise.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:51 am If THIS isn't a tipping point, this country is done for.
(the leak of it is the least of my concerns)
I originally had a longer post that was up for a while but I ended up deleting it. In some ways I think compromise may have been the wrong word. Are some of these topics black/white or yes/no...maybe but not really. I feel like those of us who are kinda in the middle on some of these topics get excoriated by the extremes to such an extent that we give up talking about them. I think you can be pro-life as it applies to you and your life but there is no need to push your personal views on other people. I don't oppose same sex marriage because it doesn't affect me but neither am I going to go out and fight for it. I guess I'm trying to say, what is wrong with live and let live? Yeah, maybe that is simplistic and naive. But seriously...live and let live. The two vocal extremes are making that impossible. And maybe I'm just getting old too, but it's just been getting progressively worse, especially the last 22 years.
Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.texasniteowl wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:41 pmI originally had a longer post that was up for a while but I ended up deleting it. In some ways I think compromise may have been the wrong word. Are some of these topics black/white or yes/no...maybe but not really. I feel like those of us who are kinda in the middle on some of these topics get excoriated by the extremes to such an extent that we give up talking about them. I think you can be pro-life as it applies to you and your life but there is no need to push your personal views on other people. I don't oppose same sex marriage because it doesn't affect me but neither am I going to go out and fight for it. I guess I'm trying to say, what is wrong with live and let live? Yeah, maybe that is simplistic and naive. But seriously...live and let live. The two vocal extremes are making that impossible. And maybe I'm just getting old too, but it's just been getting progressively worse, especially the last 22 years.
But, the fact that we have differences (and I find them small) does not mean that I don't read you and think about what you write with a critical mind, not dismissing you at once.dmforever wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:16 pm ...
Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.
And Ponchi, maybe you can see now why you and I have a slightly different view about this space that you have created, and which I'm very very thankful for.
Kevin
Your view of gender as being 100% biological is different from how other people view it, which is a combination of biology and psychology. They aren't confused. The just take more than biology into account. Sexuality is based on who you are attracted to. Gender is how you feel about yourself. There are many cultures that have had more than 2 genders for millennia. It's not a new concept at all.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:06 pm Because I find myself very much in TexasNiteOwl's camp, a few relatively random thoughts.
There are some issues that indeed are not negotiable, simply because of their nature. You, obviously, can't be "half married", and you can't get "half an abortion" because you can't be half-pregnant. But there are other things in which a median can be achieved.
The GENDER issue seems to be one of those. I just simply cannot believe or accept that there are 67 genders. I find that in that conversation conservatives do have a point. Left wing activists, to me, seem to be confused between "gender" and "sexuality", and this could have a biological definition: any combination with a Y chromosome makes you a male, all without a Y make you a female. Your sexuality? All yours. Your decision of who to love and/or who to have sex with is yours, as well as how to dress, but drop the 67 genders.
The imposition of labels is another one in which conservatives may have a point. Please, please, don't call me "latinx" or "latinex". That is not my language. Don't have the arrogance to think that you are "saving me" by changing the way my language works. Lots and lots of spanish words end in "o", but that does not mean a sexual imposition. Many words end in "a", and encompass groups. Simplest example: "persona" (person), ending in "a" but without a predisposed sexual indication.
From the right, their intransigence on any form of gun control is borderline childish, if not completely so. There are so many things that could be done (gun registration, mandatory safety training, for example) that would not infringe on the right that it could be discussed.
About abortion. The sole area that I think could be talked about could be a limit on how long into your gestation can you have an abortion. I would accept that the sole reasons for abortions in the third trimester should be medical; by the six month, if you are still unsure of whether you want or not to have a child, then the problem is certainly you. Anything else should be off the board of discussion. On same sex marriage, it is impossible for me to see anything else but absolute equality: marry whom you want, include them in your will, equal access to adoption, etc.
Of course, the GOP and conservatives are the party/mentality of "not minding your own business". An incredibly simple point is missed my them: you don't approve of abortion? Don't have one. Let's have a health system and a welfare system that will ensure that you can deliver and raise that child in the best possible way. But, of course, the GOP wants none of that. No abortion, no health care, no welfare. They do make it hard.
One thing is that, as TNO says, there is no discourse. Right now, it is all yelling. It is clear that all liberals and dems must be, rightly so, angry about this SCOTUS plan. But, when E. Warren yells that "we will not go back", she seems to be ignoring something: how? The rules in the USA are that the SCOTUS has the final say. Yes, you were cheated of a SCOTUS seat, and then Justice Kennedy basically committed treason, but that is spilt milk. You will not be able to do anything in Texas, in Florida, and in a bunch of states.
After the '20 election, I posted a small map, joking about what the USA would look like after it would split. Well, the joke is no longer funny. If this atmosphere in the USA continues, the chances that the country will be so divided that it may physically split are no longer zero. California is viable as an independent country. The entire west coast is. The northeastern portion too. If this atmosphere of non-discourse continues, in a few electoral cycles the chances of such a division of the USA will increase. The USA is nothing more than an experiment; all countries are. It has been successful for almost 250 years. Nothing guarantees that it will be so forever.
I agree. I also read your posts as well and do my best to think them through. I think my point wasn't clear though. Sorry about that. I wasn't referring to you. I was just pointing out that I might perceive this space differently than you, referring back to our discussion a while ago. I need to be more specific. My bad.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:27 pmBut, the fact that we have differences (and I find them small) does not mean that I don't read you and think about what you write with a critical mind, not dismissing you at once.dmforever wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:16 pm ...
Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.
And Ponchi, maybe you can see now why you and I have a slightly different view about this space that you have created, and which I'm very very thankful for.
Kevin
Just to make it clear: I can't imagine compromises regarding abortion, other than that 3rd trimester caveat. For me, even if a woman were to decide that abortion will be her preferred choice for family planning, I would still support her.
LGBTQ rights? Consenting adults who, when sex is involved, do so behind closed doors (the same request I have from heterosexual couples). So completely none my business, except for the fact that I support them all. Your body, your life, your love. All should have access to the means to achieve what makes them happy.
I will stop now, to let other opinions come in.
I will only comment on this one.dmforever wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:44 pm ...
The use of "latinx" began in the Latin community. I totally get not wanting people outside your group labeling you though. That really sucks. Also, I recently talked to a Colombian student of mine who told me that in Colombia at least, people are starting to use the letter "e" to degender some gendered nouns. I don't remember if she said that they use them for adjectives too. She wasn't saying that every noun was going to now end in "e". It was more about nouns for people.
...
Kevin
Thanks Just to be clear, she meant using "e" like "latine" instead of latino or latina so as to include everyone. And I totally agree that there are much larger gender issues in most places. Perhaps this focus on language happens because it's symbolic and a simple fix to make, if people want to make that change.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:17 pmI will only comment on this one.dmforever wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:44 pm ...
The use of "latinx" began in the Latin community. I totally get not wanting people outside your group labeling you though. That really sucks. Also, I recently talked to a Colombian student of mine who told me that in Colombia at least, people are starting to use the letter "e" to degender some gendered nouns. I don't remember if she said that they use them for adjectives too. She wasn't saying that every noun was going to now end in "e". It was more about nouns for people.
...
Kevin
Colombia indeed is following some trends. For example, the current Mayor of Bogota is an openly gay woman, with a well known partner. I don't know if they are married (I am not sure if Colombia finally legalized same sex marriage) but she is open about it.
That does not mean that ALL society has transitioned to an acceptance of LGBTQ. Colombia is still a very "conservative" society. In reality, they are the typical hypocritical bunch, being conservative in public and very, very liberal in their private lives (mistresses? You bet it is accepted).
About nouns. The language has a lot nouns that end in E, and are gender neutral: presidente, gerente, alcalde come easily to mind. My peeve is the imposition, and on that, I gather that older people (like me) simply refuse the change. Our language really does not use X too much, and it sounds very odd. And, to me, changing the o's and a's is trivial in relation to the other real gender problems we have. Like giving you an aspirin to treat leukemia.
The gender issue is still very different due to culture. It would take too long to put down my ideas. Will, once again, stop here.
Our company is providing lodging and travel as well (for reproductive health access and also for gender affirmation) and a lot of our clients are working on doing this.
I'm not going to be as nice as DMForever because it's not that kind of day.dmforever wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:44 pm
Your view of gender as being 100% biological is different from how other people view it, which is a combination of biology and psychology. They aren't confused. The just take more than biology into account. Sexuality is based on who you are attracted to. Gender is how you feel about yourself. There are many cultures that have had more than 2 genders for millennia. It's not a new concept at all.
I actually used to think that gender was what was between a person's legs, or in their chromosomes, but I found that talking to people or reading about their experiences changed my mind. And a good example is a transgender person. If that person's sexuality were solely based on biology, why would they want to transition? It's because their gender feels wrong to them. How they feel is a part of their gender identity. It's a part of a cisgendered person's gender identity too. It's just that we don't realize it, because we've never had to examine it.
All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:37 am I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...
I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.
In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.
That's not really why though. Sure they are ignoring precedence and will continue to when it suits them, but they will also use it when it suits them just the same.
Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.
Because some have already targeted it as a next step alongside contraception and IVF. Not sure the actual current scientific process matters to the crazies at this point. Some have just said stem cell research and others say more specifically embryonic stem cell research. But I have long since stopped looking for sound logic in their thinking so I have no idea if their why makes sense, but I haven't seen their argument laid out, just that it's been mentioned as a next step.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:13 pm
Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.
The rest of what you say: yes, fun times indeed. The USA becomes less and less appealing with great frequency.
They're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 amAll the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:37 am I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...
I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.
In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.
Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:23 amThey're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 amAll the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:37 am I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...
I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.
In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.
And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
It certainly is by some.mmmm8 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:23 pmDeuce wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:23 amThey're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 am
All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)
And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
It's not.
You are more informed than I am, so:JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
That, and truly codifying abortion rights would require a constitutional amendment to be able to prevent the Supreme Court from reversing it. Good Luck!JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
And I say that it's a highly irresponsible choice.
Thanks for posting here. I know it's a lot to process (I was 16 during the Bush-Gore 2000 election, and I thought THAT was a scary mess. The good news is that all of this is cyclical. Things will come down somewhat at some point. The bad news is that it's a particularly messy cycle.Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:48 pm I am just a kid and I don't really fully understand all the ins and outs of the judicial system in my country and all that stuff. I do know one thing that I see from all of this stuff though that has been going on lately and not just this one incident and that is my country because of all of this stuff is becoming more and more divided and these groups of people just continue to fight over and over again on these things and 99.9% of the time the outcomes seem to make things even worse. I hope things change soon because I am only 16 years old and I haven't even had a chance to vote, but by the time I am able to things are going to be a complete mess.
It would definitely be challenged. Would it be successful? Not necessarily. Standard answer to not liking a ruling of the Court is - then solve it legislatively. That's what codifying abortion laws would do. Current court? Who the **** knows. They don't hold many rights sacred and since they are checking off points on their agenda, yes, it would seem like this particular court might try their hardest. But would they go out of their way to strike down a federal abortion law? It's unlikely even with this court since they never actually said abortion should be or is banned. Think of ACA. How many challenges has it had? How badly do they want to get rid of that? Has it been struck down? It's been narrowed here and there, but not torched. That's way more likely the route would be taken with a federal abortion law. An overarching federal abortion law would be beneficial, it would invalidate most state laws and states would then be forced to challenge whatever narrow application they'd like to put on it, just like anything else, but none could impose an outright ban on it with the federal law in place unless the court were to rule abortion itself unconstitutional (which it isn't).ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:51 pm
You are more informed than I am, so:
If Congress/Senate were to codify abortion and pass it, couldn't this be challenged by opponents, claiming such new laws to be unconstitutional, and wouldn't that once again go to the SCOTUS, for these same people to strike down such laws?
Serious question.
Pontificating loudly about subjects they have little knowledge of seems to be a characteristic of some in the younger generation.JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
Fixed it for ya. Plenty of proof, including on this board (surely from me as well).
Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell weren't young.ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:27 pmPontificating loudly about subjects they have little knowledge of seems to be a characteristic of some in the younger generation.JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
That's how I feel Ponchi.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm Look at it this way.
If you were to get a job by claiming you have a PhD, and then the company were to find out that your diploma is fake and you really have nothing, how many more minutes would you remain in the company?
This is the same. This person lied in his job interview, provided wrongful info, and a group if insiders helped him get away with that.
As I say: the GOP cares NOTHING about the democratic process. They will always believe that the end will justify the means. And I know that Joe et al are saying that you cannot pack the court because it will mean that when the GOP gets back in the presidency, they will do the same (hey, 25 Supreme Judges? Why not?), but if you DON'T, they will be the ones doing it.
It is no longer about what is proper; it is about how to save the country.
Some questions do not need 9 highfaluting lawyers, 11 Nobel Prize winners, 52 philosophers and divine intervention to be answered.
From https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-wh ... e%20Senate.
If he wasn't shameless he'd resign because of the damage his shenanigans are doing to the reputation of the Court. Remember Bush 1 inflicted this person on the country despite the bravery of Anita Hill who tried to tell us exactly who he was.Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate.
Personally I'd like to know how close this guy is to the Bush family.@kjhealy@mastodon.social
oh come on, ALL good historians of fascism have extensive collections of Nazi memorabilia and signed copies of Mein Kampf and originals of Hitler's paintings, or at least high-quality prints, that's how you know they're morally serious people and not weirdos with more money than sense
Especially if you specialize in the very same service that you're seeking out!dryrunguy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:51 am When I decide to tie the knot, I'm going to search out one of the few people who is diametrically opposed to my lifestyle so I can get wrapped up in a prolonged Supreme Court battle for years and years and years--just to make a point. Because there are no other options out there.
Said no one ever.
If the cat believes Jesus is it's savior, then yes, all can go accordingly, if it doesn't believe, jail might be more appropriate.
It never used to be thought of as a political body until Bush vs Gore. The late Sandra Day O'Connor said publicly that they shouldn't have gotten involved in that situation.
The Dred Scott decision will always stand in infamy as one of the worst decisions made by the Supreme Court.dave g wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:22 pm "The old court ruled strictly on the law - precedents and opinions that had existed for centuries, and not issued opinions that were just that - opinions with no basis in settled law."
Accept some of those precedents and opinions were pretty ugly, back in their day; most noticable Dread Scott.
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.
Especially if a certain person was to repeat 2016 as that person, McConnell and others stacked the courts. McConnell is responsible for the first one as he stated no one gets nominated in an election year. However, McConnell dropped that clause by electing Barrett in 39 days.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm In this post pandemic world, I've noticed that straight, white men, especially in power, have clawed back all the good will, power, and decency that was rising in those who aren't straight white men in America. I can't help but feel a much more violent America on the horizon because of those men.
I wish I could disagree. They want pre WW2 United States.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:42 pm In this post pandemic world, I've noticed that straight, white men, especially in power, have clawed back all the good will, power, and decency that was rising in those who aren't straight white men in America. I can't help but feel a much more violent America on the horizon because of those men.