On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Joined
    Oct 4, 2019
    Messages
    4
    Reaction score
    9
    Location
    Braintree, MA
    Offline

    "Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

    WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

    “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.
     
    If Nebraska, a very deep red state, can vote to protect abortion access by a 2-1 margin, I’d be willing to bet there isn’t a state in the union where 90% of people want an abortion ban. Not a single one.
    If that is the case, then the people will make their wishes known at the ballot box and the law will soon change. Democracy is messy, but it usually gets to the right answer.

    Democracy is the worst political system except for all the others. - Ben Franklin
     
    If that is the case, then the people will make their wishes known at the ballot box and the law will soon change. Democracy is messy, but it usually gets to the right answer.

    Democracy is the worst political system except for all the others. - Ben Franklin
    Um, no. If left to democracy alone Jim Crow would still be with us. Once people elect representatives they cede their power to the representatives. This occurs no matter the level of government. Corruption, legislative capture, regulatory capture, secretive lobbying, PACs et al are all examples of the obstacles encountered by democracy. Look at how many people support universal background checks yet democracy does nothing. Does this mean that democracy should be abandoned? No. But it does mean that claiming democracy usually gets to the right answer is the same as truth will out. Unless it is pushed against the greatest obstacle ever namely fear democracy will not succeed.

    And of course let us not forget Bird’s Theorem: “‘We The People’ are stupid.”
     
    Um, no. If left to democracy alone Jim Crow would still be with us. Once people elect representatives they cede their power to the representatives. This occurs no matter the level of government. Corruption, legislative capture, regulatory capture, secretive lobbying, PACs et al are all examples of the obstacles encountered by democracy. Look at how many people support universal background checks yet democracy does nothing. Does this mean that democracy should be abandoned? No. But it does mean that claiming democracy usually gets to the right answer is the same as truth will out. Unless it is pushed against the greatest obstacle ever namely fear democracy will not succeed.

    And of course let us not forget Bird’s Theorem: “‘We The People’ are stupid.”
    I don't think Jim Crow would still be with us, but what killed it? It wasn't the Supreme Court. It was the Civil Rights Act and the marching and protests and changing attitudes. The proponents for equality played a long game. Democracy won that game.

    Kind of like what the proponents of overturning abortion did.
     
    I don't think Jim Crow would still be with us, but what killed it? It wasn't the Supreme Court. It was the Civil Rights Act and the marching and protests and changing attitudes. The proponents for equality played a long game. Democracy won that game.

    Kind of like what the proponents of overturning abortion did.
    Yeah, proponents of Civil Rights played within the rules and shamed America into being what it is supposed to be. Whereas the proponents of overturning abortion murdered doctors, intimidated young girls trying to get a legal medical procedure and when all of that still didn't work, they made sure that they got judges on the bench who openly and willfully lied about their intentions and for good measure, they even denied a sitting president his right to nominate a supreme court justice and unabashedly became hypocrites to place their last judge on the court during an election.

    There is a huge difference and really the two should not be compared to each other. One side played by the rules. The other side changed or broke the rules.
     
    I don't think Jim Crow would still be with us, but what killed it? It wasn't the Supreme Court. It was the Civil Rights Act and the marching and protests and changing attitudes. The proponents for equality played a long game. Democracy won that game.

    Kind of like what the proponents of overturning abortion did.
    They bombed and set fires at medical clinics, murdered physicians, sent poison to medical clinics, harassed women at medical clinics and workers at their homes. But other than that, sure, they played within the rules. Oh, except when they were breaking or bending the rules to get corrupt judges on the SC. No attitudes have changed over abortion. That is an illusion.

    The federal government had to force the states to give up segregation and Jim Crow, and there are certainly aspects of Jim Crow still present, it’s just gone underground.

    It doesn’t change the fact that basic human rights shouldn’t depend on what state you live in. Either this nation is committed to protecting the rights of its citizens or it’s not. Whenever you make a class of people into second class citizens without the same rights that others have, that’s a real problem.
     
    A couple of things.

    Some number of the 70% that wanted Roe to stay in place may have thought that overturning it would ban it nationwide. That's not the case and is more a reflection of people's general political apathy and the willful deception practiced by much of the news media

    Secondly, the 30% that hotly debated abortion were not uniformly distributed. There's some states where it's probably close to 90%, and other states where it's a distinct minority. Now that Roe is dead, the states that hotly debated it will actually be able to make their wishes known. And the states that didn't want it to change can keep the same policies.

    OTOH, there are only two states where a minority of people think gay marriage should not be legal. Is it okay to force them to go along with a policy they don't want? Arguably, no. But as a practical matter they simply don't have the momentum to change Obergefell.

    Yes, it's ok to force them to uniformly respect the humanity and civil rights of each AMERICAN no matter what state they're in.

    Of course, unless you think we should return the choice of chattel slavery to the states.
     
    Another couple of interesting stats.

    75% of Americans think abortion should not be decided by the Supreme Court


    25% of LIV Americans, including 31% of independents and 27% of Democrats think overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationally.

    I probably shouldn’t even respond to such nonsense. But without reading your really abjectly awful sources (which I won’t read because they’re garbage), do you imagine that the 75% of Americans who don’t want the Supreme Court deciding whether they can get an abortion actually DO want state legislators deciding that for them? LOL.

    Polls are really suspect these days, in case you haven’t noticed, and pre-election polls in Kansas showed the abortion access referendum to be too close to call. We both know how that turned out. The actual vote in Kansas, a very Republican, deep red state, is objective evidence for the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want abortion bans. State legislators who ignore the wishes of this 60-70% of their constituents do so at their political peril.

    The real shame is that some actual women will suffer and die by the time these monsters pay their political price.
     
    I don't think Jim Crow would still be with us, but what killed it? It wasn't the Supreme Court. It was the Civil Rights Act and the marching and protests and changing attitudes. The proponents for equality played a long game. Democracy won that game.

    Kind of like what the proponents of overturning abortion did.
    Really? Ever heard of Brown v Bd of Ed? Changing attitudes? Geez, take a history class. As for democracy? It was the distant, bloated federal government that did it. The same one you decry.
     
    Really? Ever heard of Brown v Bd of Ed? Changing attitudes? Geez, take a history class. As for democracy? It was the distant, bloated federal government that did it. The same one you decry.

    Yep.

    Smith V. Allwright (1944)
    Brown V. Board of Education (1954)
    Loving V. Virginia (1967)

    etc etc etc. The Claim that the Supreme Court wasn't integral to the CR movement is a poor argument.
     
    Really? Ever heard of Brown v Bd of Ed? Changing attitudes? Geez, take a history class. As for democracy? It was the distant, bloated federal government that did it. The same one you decry.
    Brown v Board of education banned separate but equal in schools. Nothing else.
     
    Yes, it's ok to force them to uniformly respect the humanity and civil rights of each AMERICAN no matter what state they're in.

    Of course, unless you think we should return the choice of chattel slavery to the states.
    Why would you even think I want chattel slavery? I have no idea what you are talking about.
     
    Why would you even think I want chattel slavery? I have no idea what you are talking about.

    You know exactly what he's talking about

    Do you think that the states on an individual basis decide, (or allow their citizens to vote), if there can be slavery in that state, or if minorities and women can vote in that state? If interracial and gay couples can get married in that state?

    or do you believe that the federal government can say this is a federal law and certain rights are protected in every single state of the union?
     
    Brown v Board of education banned separate but equal in schools. Nothing else.
    Again, take a history class. The SCOTUS most assuredly played a role in the entire civil rights struggle no matter what you think. And, again, it took the bloated, distant federal government (which the SCOTUS is part of) to bring about the change as opposed to the local/state governments that were much better aligned with their citizens wants to keep segregation.
     
    CNN) - Conservative Supreme Court justices were hostile on Monday to the ongoing use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

    The court took nearly five hours to debate affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard.

    Based on Monday's oral arguments, the six conservative justices appear ready to end the use of affirmative action in admissions, overturning a precedent from 1978……..


     
    CNN) - Conservative Supreme Court justices were hostile on Monday to the ongoing use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

    The court took nearly five hours to debate affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard.

    Based on Monday's oral arguments, the six conservative justices appear ready to end the use of affirmative action in admissions, overturning a precedent from 1978……..



    What SCOTUS would like us to believe is that college admissions are merit-based and should thus naturally be free from racism.

    What they know, however, is that admissions are inherently race-aware, if not race-based. Slots aren't given by merit at all. It's a casting call. The admins get together and determine what they want the Class of 2027 to look like. X number of 4.5GPA overacheivers, a few type-Z's who ace every test but can't be arsed to do a lick of homework, a few kids from economically disadvantaged locations, a few women...maybe more, depending on the academic reputation of the college, etc. Merit, at best, gets you a place in the "4.5 GPA overachievers" list. What this ruling does is allow Harvard/Yale, etc to stop even pretending and go all caucasian, all the time.
    Procul Harum's "Whiter shade of pale" comes to mind.
     
    What SCOTUS would like us to believe is that college admissions are merit-based and should thus naturally be free from racism.

    What they know, however, is that admissions are inherently race-aware, if not race-based. Slots aren't given by merit at all. It's a casting call. The admins get together and determine what they want the Class of 2027 to look like. X number of 4.5GPA overacheivers, a few type-Z's who ace every test but can't be arsed to do a lick of homework, a few kids from economically disadvantaged locations, a few women...maybe more, depending on the academic reputation of the college, etc. Merit, at best, gets you a place in the "4.5 GPA overachievers" list. What this ruling does is allow Harvard/Yale, etc to stop even pretending and go all caucasian, all the time.
    Procul Harum's "Whiter shade of pale" comes to mind.

    Maybe, but I think there's a way to get around using race based criteria. That would be by using income based criteria similar to how Pell grants are awarded. Considering the demographics of low income families, I'm not sure how much college demographics would change if affirmative action is eliminated.

    I support keeping it in place, but we're it to go away, that doesn't mean there aren't other tools available to keep the existing demographics from changing too much.
     
    CNN) - Conservative Supreme Court justices were hostile on Monday to the ongoing use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

    The court took nearly five hours to debate affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard.

    Based on Monday's oral arguments, the six conservative justices appear ready to end the use of affirmative action in admissions, overturning a precedent from 1978……..


    Par for the course with the SCOTUS. It's the same logic they used when they shot down key parts of the 1965 Voters Right Act and to the surprise of NO ONE, Republican led legislators across the country began instituting the very measures that the VRA guarded against. There is zero doubt that the same thing will happen again.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom