Supreme Court Watch

All the other crazy stuff we talk about. Politics, Science, News, the Kitchen, other hobbies.
User avatar
dryrunguy
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:31 am
Has thanked: 693 times
Been thanked: 1155 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#151

Post by dryrunguy »

Men can use contraceptive technologies as well, from condoms to vasectomy. But no one talks about that. Heaven forbid... Because reproductive responsibility rests solely on women. For some ignorant reason.
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#152

Post by Deuce »

Certainly men are half the equation, and thus share in the responsibility (as I mentioned above). But this discussion is about abortion.

Both the man and the woman are responsible for contraception and for conception. That is biologically clear. Psychologically, I suppose the more common perspective is that the male can coerce the female into not using contraception more than the female can coerce the male into not using it.

But the female can lie about being on the pill, and then use abortion as a form of birth control. But what if the man wants the baby? What about HIS rights?
Or the woman can have the baby and demand that the man pay child support - even though she told him she was on the pill...
There are all sorts of ugly scenarios possible when it comes to this type of human relation, with different manipulations possible from both parties.

And again, I come to education... educating both parties about the importance of contraception, about the importance of knowing and trusting your partner, about the consequences of not using contraception, and even about the potential psychological/emotional effects of abortion (because it has been known to affect some rather profoundly in this manner).

It's not nearly as black and white a matter as some people are making it out to be. Interactive human relations are extremely complex.
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
User avatar
mmmm8
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 855 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#153

Post by mmmm8 »

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.
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.
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14722
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5565 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#154

Post by ponchi101 »

Here comes Ponchi to uplift everybody's spirit, but...
The problem with cyclic systems is that they "tend" to fluctuate within limits, but if one of the limits is broken the system may not recover. In environmental sciences, Prey/Predator populations fluctuate in tandem: an increase in PREY leads to an increase in PREDATORS (more food to eat) but if the increase in predators goes over a limit, the predators may wipe out the prey, leading to their own demise. The cyclical system disappears.
In politics, systems fluctuate, with political parties leaning one way or another taking turns at ruling. But when the ruling party is extreme, they then stay by all means and the cycle is broken. Is what has happened in Venezuela, where a democratically elected party quickly morphed into a dictatorship. Our system, needless to say, has not recovered and, if it does, it will take more than normal (we have been under this dictatorship for 24 years now).
In the USA, the final arbiter of ALL political decisions is the SCOTUS. And if the SCOTUS goes extreme, the cycle may be broken. An extreme SCOTUS may lead to legal decisions that favor one party over the other (in this case, the GOP), allowing the GOP to remain in power longer, allowing the GOP to be the party that chooses extreme replacements for already extreme judges. The system stops being cyclical and and functions as a positive feedback system.
When the SCOTUS becomes unbalanced in the USA, your final arbiter is no longer reliable. I see at least four justices in the SCOTUS as people that do not see their jobs as dispensing justice, but rather imposing an agenda: ACB, Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas. And with this RoeVWade reversal, Gorsuch and Roberts may be leaning that way too.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14722
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5565 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#155

Post by ponchi101 »

Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
User avatar
JazzNU United States of America
Posts: 6655
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 2786 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#156

Post by JazzNU »

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.
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).

Disclaimer - this court literally issued two opinions with contrasting logic on state's rights within days of each other - so they are perfectly willing to craft an opinion to suit their activism and are completely comfortable with it lacking any consistency.
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#157

Post by ti-amie »

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.
Pontificating loudly about subjects they have little knowledge of seems to be a characteristic of some in the younger generation.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
mmmm8
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 855 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#158

Post by mmmm8 »

ti-amie wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:27 pm
Pontificating loudly about subjects they have little knowledge of seems to be a characteristic of some in the younger generation people.
Fixed it for ya. Plenty of proof, including on this board (surely from me as well).

In fact, lawmakers and judges deciding on medical issues like abortion is the height of it, and they certainly aren't in the younger generation.
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#159

Post by ti-amie »



“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
Owendonovan United States of America
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:08 am
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 941 times
Been thanked: 713 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#160

Post by Owendonovan »

ti-amie wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:27 pm
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.
Pontificating loudly about subjects they have little knowledge of seems to be a characteristic of some in the younger generation.
Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell weren't young.
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#161

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14722
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5565 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#162

Post by ponchi101 »

All fine, until the RESPECTFUL dissent. I don't think there is any doubt that the foundation of this SCOTUS version is religious to the core. And if so, separation of church and state is gone.
And that is not a slippery slope. That is simply freefall.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#163

Post by ti-amie »

I've been making myself read a lot of commentary by Catholic thinkers since May when the leak happened. I'm glad to see them twisting themselves into knots trying to make this ruling into something it's not. People are rightly pushing back on the "adoption option" and asking why don't those who say they'll adopt start with the 400k+ children in foster care? Needless to say there has been no response.

And yes Ponchi "Catholic thinkers" is a bit of an oxymoron.
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#164

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5302 times
Been thanked: 3284 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#165

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 3 guests