I believe the division the country has experienced under the disaster that was the Trump administration will be minor compared to the social upheaval to come should Roe be overturned or otherwise nullified. The American taliban has the SCOTUS and demands their say no matter the cost.
Spot on. This is akin to what is a crime in one state is welcome and legal in others. Food for thought:
Women make up 20% of our current military forces; often key in intelligence and security operations. If women begin to eschew joining the military because they can't know if they'll be stationed in a Criminal or Legal Abortion state, it would greatly damage our homeland security and possibly incur the reinstatement of the Draft.
If Republicans don't care about body autonomy, privacy or personal rights, there's nothing young men between the ages of 18-34 can do about being forced to fill those 'boots on the ground.'
Naturally, as it was back in the 60's, One's wealth will determine their level of 'patriotism.'
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
May 9, 2022 - 11:11am
Isabeau wrote:
HarleyRider wrote:
I do not care or feel overly concerned about abortion, transgenderism, or homosexuality. I am very concerned about inflation, personal freedom, free speech, the price of energy and food, the national debt, illegal immigration, and upholding the constitution as it is written in stone, and I will vote on these issues alone. However, regarding the past week’s leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion that has the country talking, progressives and the liberal media mob are showing far more outrage over the draft’s contents than its leak. The leaker must be punished professionally—fired and barred from work in law, and criminally prosecuted, if possible. If the draft holds and Roe is overturned, the issue goes to the states, which is where it belongs.
So you are conflating one half the population (Women) private health care decisions with considerably smaller groups and not concerned. Not concerned that Religion is underscoring a BELIEF that is being legislated upon? No concerns over Separation of Church and State? So Only that which concerns YOU are the only parts of the Constitution you support?
I believe the division the country has experienced under the disaster that was the Trump administration will be minor compared to the social upheaval to come should Roe be overturned or otherwise nullified. The American taliban has the SCOTUS and demands their say no matter the cost.
I do not care or feel overly concerned about abortion, transgenderism, or homosexuality. I am very concerned about inflation, personal freedom, free speech, the price of energy and food, the national debt, illegal immigration, and upholding the constitution as it is written in stone, and I will vote on these issues alone. However, regarding the past weekâs leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion that has the country talking, progressives and the liberal media mob are showing far more outrage over the draftâs contents than its leak. The leaker must be punished professionallyâfired and barred from work in law, and criminally prosecuted, if possible. If the draft holds and Roe is overturned, the issue goes to the states, which is where it belongs.
So you are conflating one half the population (Women) private health care decisions with considerably smaller groups and not concerned. Not concerned that Religion is underscoring a BELIEF that is being legislated upon? No concerns over Separation of Church and State?
So Only that which concerns YOU are the only parts of the Constitution you support?
Your opinion reminds me of the outage some felt over the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court upheld the publication of that material which at the time was classified as Top Secret.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 9, 2022 - 10:29am
black321 wrote:
Wise words.
The nomination process has been subsumed by politics. The Senate has abdicated its responsibilities in serving as a check on nominees of a President. It really has become a joke and a charade. The shenanigans of McConnell resulted in 2 âstolenâ seats on the Court. That â alone â has besmirched the current Court, perhaps damaging it irreparably. Of course, there have been other incidents. But the point of my post is that the original idea of the Court still makes sense. I am not sure how we can correct for the manipulation of the nomination process â other than elect better Senators (and Presidents). Or the open politicization that has resulted in the people writ large inexplicably and foolishly believing they absolutely know what makes a good Justice or what is or is not constitutional. We stand on the precipice â or we already have entered the abyss. The Court is supposed to be a sentinel stationed to prevent us from going over the edge. Unfortunate if it now is the catalyst for our ultimate demise.
However, regarding the past weekâs leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion that has the country talking, progressives and the liberal media mob are showing far more outrage over the draftâs contents than its leak. The leaker must be punished professionallyâfired and barred from work in law, and criminally prosecuted, if possible.
Your opinion reminds me of the outage some felt over the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court upheld the publication of that material which at the time was classified as Top Secret.
I do not care or feel overly concerned about abortion, transgenderism, or homosexuality. I am very concerned about inflation, personal freedom, free speech, the price of energy and food, the national debt, illegal immigration, and upholding the constitution as it is written in stone, and I will vote on these issues alone. However, regarding the past week’s leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion that has the country talking, progressives and the liberal media mob are showing far more outrage over the draft’s contents than its leak. The leaker must be punished professionally—fired and barred from work in law, and criminally prosecuted, if possible. If the draft holds and Roe is overturned, the issue goes to the states, which is where it belongs.
The draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade is reason for feeling and expressing discontent with the Supreme Court, which is putting it mildly. That said, it is not a time to question the framework of the Founders that, in my opinion, wisely placed the Supreme Court in this position of power and influence, while trying to insulate it as best they could from the political process. Those insisting that the Justices be made accountable to the people have it wrong.
I am hoping, for example, that this episode does not result in an expanded number of Justices, known as packing the Court. I might be in favor of imposing term limits, but they would need to be terms lengthy enough to provide some of that necessary political insulation. I certainly would not be in favor of anything less than 10 years and probably thinking closer to 20 years. Shorter terms would result in a more constant turnover of Justices that, I believe, would result in instability in the Court itself and exacerbate current popular malaise by elevating even more the political and cultural warfare over nominations. We do not need more political and cultural circuses, which is largely what Senate confirmation hearings have become, with no end in sight to the escalation of the absurd.
In sum, it is not a time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Restraint is warranted. There certainly have been abominable decisions of the Supreme Court (e.g., Dred Scott and Plessy v, Ferguson), but, over the course of our history, the Court has played its role as envisioned by the Founders. We should be hesitant to alter that framework. Even amidst this tumult, proceed with caution.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 6, 2022 - 8:27am
The draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade is reason for feeling and expressing discontent with the Supreme Court, which is putting it mildly. That said, it is not a time to question the framework of the Founders that, in my opinion, wisely placed the Supreme Court in this position of power and influence, while trying to insulate it as best they could from the political process. Those insisting that the Justices be made accountable to the people have it wrong.
I am hoping, for example, that this episode does not result in an expanded number of Justices, known as packing the Court. I might be in favor of imposing term limits, but they would need to be terms lengthy enough to provide some of that necessary political insulation. I certainly would not be in favor of anything less than 10 years and probably thinking closer to 20 years. Shorter terms would result in a more constant turnover of Justices that, I believe, would result in instability in the Court itself and exacerbate current popular malaise by elevating even more the political and cultural warfare over nominations. We do not need more political and cultural circuses, which is largely what Senate confirmation hearings have become, with no end in sight to the escalation of the absurd.
In sum, it is not a time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Restraint is warranted. There certainly have been abominable decisions of the Supreme Court (e.g., Dred Scott and Plessy v, Ferguson), but, over the course of our history, the Court has played its role as envisioned by the Founders. We should be hesitant to alter that framework. Even amidst this tumult, proceed with caution.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course.
Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
You (OK, not just you, but everybody convinced that the Citizens United decision signals the end of...democracy? Human civilization?) should really read it.
No, it doesn't allow Corporations to have free speech "like people do", it acknowledges that individuals don't give up their right to free speech when they act collectively. As for the "money talks" trope, Justice William O. Douglas (in a dissent on a ruling on the Taft-Hartley Act, joined by Warren Burger and Hugo Black) wrote in 1957:
...no one would seriously contend that the expenditure of money to print a newspaper deprives the publisher of freedom of the press. Nor can the fact that it costs money to make a speech-âwhether it be hiring a hall or purchasing time on the air-âmake the speech any the less an exercise of First Amendment rights.
That was 50+ years earlier, in a case muzzling a labor union, but the point is the same. That's what the ACLU (in a friend of the court brief) argued in supporting Citizens United and urging the law in question be overturned as unconstitutional. Which the court did, and properly so.
The Citizens United decision means that even people you (and the dominant political class at the time) hate get to have their say, and that no federal agency gets to ban a film (or—that's right—a book) because they don't like who wrote it.
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010—almost entirely by people who haven't read the decision—but whatevs.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course. Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
Like Disney in Florida ? I bet you're okay with that.
Ah sweet Lazy, I see what you did there.
We can split hairs all day on semantics, intentions and interpretations and get lost chasing squirrels of avoidance of what's happening. But it won't stop
SCOTUS creating Legislation based on Belief, not science. If Privacy rights are arbitrary, there goes the argument against a National Gun Data base, or the elimination of online porn sites, health records, ...
Who decides which parts of the Constitution are worth keeping and those that should be tossed?
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010âalmost entirely by people who haven't read the decisionâbut whatevs.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course.
Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
(neither is the word 'Corporation' but SCOTUS made them People.)
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010—almost entirely by people who haven't read the decision—but whatevs.
At large here is the unconstitutional practice of allowing religious belief to make law. This is the seminal issue of the founding of this country that no state religion will exist or any religion shall Govern. The Slaughter of the Crusades, the horrors of both Spanish and French Inquisitions, Protestants burning Catholics and vice versa over Ritual, and nearly 400 years of witch burnings were still strong in the psyches of early colonists and they were determined not to have this country do the same.
This is a fundamental unraveling of the core of this Nation.
I'd say regulating the internal organs of any human being in the U.S. is the very definition of Unlawful Search & Seizure.
