ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 30th October 2020, 03:52 AM   #401
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 25,953
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are confused. I’m in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isn’t punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesn’t get married, and that’s just an absurd twisting of language.

You're right, but only because of a large infusion of straw.

If, more accurately, you believe it is absurd that the state could punish someone by not allowing them to be married then I think you should spend more time considering the issue.

And that is the issue being discussed.

Taxes, inheritance, adoption, next-of-kin rights, etc., all of these and more are privileges conferred by the institution of marriage. Apparently the state attaches some significant value to the status.

How could denying someone the right to share such a status simply because they are not hetero be anything but a punishment? As you yourself concede, the consequences are negative.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 30th October 2020 at 03:54 AM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 07:48 AM   #402
Louden Wilde
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: NYC
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
It amazes me that there are things like this, where an overwhelming majority of people have one point of view and yet there are political parties for which the contrary view is a cornerstone of their manifesto and yet they are regularly returned to government.

In the US the majority of people are pro-choice, pro (more) gun-control, pro socialised medicine, pro higher taxes (on the wealthy), pro immigration and so on and yet the GOP get elected with the diametrically opposing policies.
The GOP has a motivated/scared/angry base and are good at exploiting the non-democratic parts of US law/structure - district gerrymandering, the courts, the senate (which is increasingly becoming non-representative of the population), restrictive voting laws and (of course) the electoral college. A favorite talking point is "The US is a republic, not a democracy" Bottom line is that they know time and demographics are not in their favor - which is why a power grab now seems like a real possibility....

Last edited by Louden Wilde; 30th October 2020 at 07:50 AM. Reason: clarity
Louden Wilde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 08:21 AM   #403
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
How could denying someone the right to share such a status simply because they are not hetero be anything but a punishment? As you yourself concede, the consequences are negative.
Because that's not what punishment means. It doesn't mean anything that has negative consequences.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 08:23 AM   #404
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,116
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because that's not what punishment means. It doesn't mean anything that has negative consequences.
How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 08:24 AM   #405
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?
I asked him the same question a few pages back. Oddly I didn't get an answer. (I got a response, but I most certainly didn't get an answer) Maybe he'll deem you worthy of one.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 09:52 AM   #406
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?
That's really weak. No, something doesn't have to be punishment to be unconstitutional, let alone bad policy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 10:05 AM   #407
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,116
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's really weak. No, something doesn't have to be punishment to be unconstitutional, let alone bad policy.
I agree. Does this mean that you are not in favor of a hypothetical court ruling that would invalidate same-sex marriage, and that the prior exchanges were simply quibbling over the terminology being misused?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 10:46 AM   #408
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I agree. Does this mean that you are not in favor of a hypothetical court ruling that would invalidate same-sex marriage,
I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.

Quote:
and that the prior exchanges were simply quibbling over the terminology being misused?
No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it. The quibbling over terminology arose in the context of people trying to defend the position that states could do that. But no, they cannot.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 11:07 AM   #409
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,594
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.



No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it. The quibbling over terminology arose in the context of people trying to defend the position that states could do that. But no, they cannot.
It would be very simple to punish those in Alabama who would assist a woman in Alabama who is seeking an out of state abortion. It would be very simple to make it illegal for doctors, pharmacist, social workers, or counselors in Alabama to discuss out of state treatment with an Alabama patient.

They may not outlaw going for an out of state abortion, but they may throw many hurdles in the way of poor women seeking medical care. Rich women who really need an abortion are completely different, of course.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 11:09 AM   #410
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.



No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it.
....
On what basis would you claim that? It's indisputable that some justices will "interpret" the laws to achieve political ends. Why do you think an anti-abortion justice couldn't find a way to support punishing someone who obtains an abortion? If a state's laws define every fetus as a "child," and you leave the state with a "child" and come home without one, you think that couldn't be made a crime? They could certainly make it a crime to facilitate someone else getting an out-of-state abortion, which would mean not providing advice, transportation, money or other help. The right-wng justices are already trying to shut down full ballot counts. You think they wouldn't go much farther over abortion?

Last edited by Bob001; 30th October 2020 at 11:10 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 11:42 AM   #411
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
"This can't happen, LOL you're being dramatic, because a court stacked with religious, conservative justices will interrupt the laws the same way it's always been interpreted despite the fact that interpreted the laws in a new way is exactly why they were put on the bench" isn't wowing me as an argument.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 30th October 2020 at 11:59 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 11:58 AM   #412
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It would be very simple to punish those in Alabama who would assist a woman in Alabama who is seeking an out of state abortion. It would be very simple to make it illegal for doctors, pharmacist, social workers, or counselors in Alabama to discuss out of state treatment with an Alabama patient.
No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.

Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.

This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.

Quote:
They may not outlaw going for an out of state abortion
Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 12:06 PM   #413
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"This can't happen, LOL you're being dramatic, because a court stacked with religious, conservative justices will interrupt the laws the same way despite the fact that interrupting the laws in a new way is exactly why they were put on the bench" isn't wowing me as an argument.
I don't need to wow you. I only need to be right. And, well, I am.

And judges don't tend to care why someone nominated them. They have their own outlooks on the law and the constitution. There is nothing in Barret's work, or the work of any judge on the Supreme Court, that even hints that any of them would ever consider letting states outlaw travel to other states in order to partake in lawful activity within those other states. That isn't a thing. It's never going to be a thing.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 12:36 PM   #414
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,594
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.
You would think and yet there are laws that limit what doctors can say to their patients in some states about abortion.

Quote:
Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.
Because no one cares. Literally, no one cares about other things the way they care about abortion. And if you take them at their word, they are right to care: they believe it to be murder. Murder is worse than gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution. Preventing this type of murder is a calling that they will dump untold millions of dollars into. They will do everything to test the fringes of what can be done. That is what they have done for 20 years and they will continue for the next 20 years.

Quote:
This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.

Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?
No, but nice edit of my post to remove why. That was so fetch.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:33 PM   #415
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
You would think and yet there are laws that limit what doctors can say to their patients in some states about abortion.
....
They have also been required to say certain things, sometimes medically inaccurate, to patients that are calculated to discourage abortion.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
.....
They will do everything to test the fringes of what can be done. That is what they have done for 20 years and they will continue for the next 20 years.
....
Not 20 years. Pretty much every day since January 1973, almost 48 years.

Last edited by Bob001; 30th October 2020 at 01:35 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:38 PM   #416
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,632
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That isn't a thing. It's never going to be a thing.
Until is and you'll just deny ever saying that and you won't care because your side has already won.

"The right isn't trying to make the Courts, SCOTUS in particular, more hostile to abortions" is so ludicrous a statement the fact that you don't experience pain when you utter is proof there's no God.
__________________
- No, someone having reality and facts on their side does not mean they have been given an unfair advantage and it is not a bias against you. You're just wrong.
- There is no Overton Window for facts.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:38 PM   #417
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
.....
And if you take them at their word, they are right to care: they believe it to be murder.
.....
Let me ask (I don't know the answer): Are there state laws that prohibit transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of killing them? Even if the "murder" is committed elsewhere, I would think kidnapping and some forms of assault might be applied, especially when the "criminal" returns to her home state (no extradition issues).

Last edited by Bob001; 30th October 2020 at 01:47 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 01:57 PM   #418
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Until is and you'll just deny ever saying that and you won't care because your side has already won.
And if it never is, what will you say? Will you acknowledge that you were wrong?

No. You'll try to claim that it didn't come to pass because you successfully resisted it.

But it's really just like whistling to keep tigers away, even though there are no tigers. But that's just proof to you that it worked.

Quote:
"The right isn't trying to make the Courts, SCOTUS in particular, more hostile to abortions" is so ludicrous a statement the fact that you don't experience pain when you utter is proof there's no God.
Except I never said that. We aren't talking about the right trying to make the courts more hostile to abortion than they are now. I take that as a given. A lot of the right wants Roe v. Wade overturned. I doubt it will happen within the next few decades, if ever, but I don't discount the possibility.

But that's not what we're discussing. What we're discussing goes far beyond just overturning Roe v. Wade. The most that the right can even hope for is overturning Roe v. Wade, which throws it back to the states. And some states will outlaw it, and some won't. But at that point, states won't regulate what citizens can do in other states. That won't be a thing. Nobody wants that, nobody is in favor of that.

There are plenty of people on the right who can recognize exactly how dangerous such a precedent would be to them. Dr. Keith said nobody has tried to do that because nobody cared enough. And that may be true, in part. But nobody has tried it also because it's obviously unconstitutional and wouldn't survive a challenge. If you change that, though, then all bets are off. People who don't care about stuff like prostitution or gun control enough to try doomed laws now might well try it if it's not doomed.

There is no constituency for allowing cross-border state regulation. None. Not on the right, and not on the left, and not in the center. It won't happen, regardless of what happens to Roe v. Wade.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 02:00 PM   #419
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Let me ask (I don't know the answer): Are there state laws that prohibit transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of killing them? Even if the "murder" is committed elsewhere, I would think kidnapping and some forms of assault might be applied, especially when the "criminal" returns to her home state (no extradition issues).
I know of no such laws. The laws that I do know of which prohibit criminal activity in connection with crossing state lines are federal laws.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 06:23 PM   #420
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.

Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.

This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.



Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?
But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.

A demographic that sees an aborted fetus as a full on human murdered, and who would countenance the bombing of abortion clinics and even assassination of abortion providers could hardly be expected to balk at coming up with creative ways to punish those involved in out-of-state abortions.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2020, 07:20 PM   #421
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I know of no such laws. The laws that I do know of which prohibit criminal activity in connection with crossing state lines are federal laws.
In this specific case, if a state saw the fetus as a person and abortion as murder, it would be a short step to argue that taking "a person" across state lines (or, actually, anywhere) against their will would be kidnapping, and that anybody who helped in any way is part of a criminal conspiracy. Don't be so sure it couldn't happen.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 04:54 AM   #422
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.

A demographic that sees an aborted fetus as a full on human murdered, and who would countenance the bombing of abortion clinics and even assassination of abortion providers could hardly be expected to balk at coming up with creative ways to punish those involved in out-of-state abortions.
Crossing state lines to commit a murder is already something states don't regulate, and have never tried to regulate. Johnny Cash didn't end up in Folsom because of the man he shot in Reno.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 07:58 AM   #423
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...tion-abortion/

Many states restrict access to abortion medication. None of them have tried to criminalize traveling to another state with easier access.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 08:43 AM   #424
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In this specific case, if a state saw the fetus as a person and abortion as murder, it would be a short step to argue that taking "a person" across state lines (or, actually, anywhere) against their will would be kidnapping, and that anybody who helped in any way is part of a criminal conspiracy. Don't be so sure it couldn't happen.
Wow, you're really getting desperate to prove that your paranoia is justified.

Yeah, no. Traveling with a fetus inside your womb isn't kidnapping. That's just stupid. I mean really, really stupid.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 08:48 AM   #425
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.
It doesn't matter how much individual anti-abortion advocates think abortion is murder, the law doesn't treat it as such. Even laws outlawing abortion didn't treat it as murder. And undoing Roe v. Wade won't make it the legal equivalent of murder.

Here's a clue for you: half the country doesn't think that actual murder is OK.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:12 AM   #426
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days.
That's currently happening in El Salvador.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Wow. If there was an award for most dishonest statement made on the forum, I'd nominate this one.
It wouldn't be able to get in a squeak with the myriad of lies you spout on a daily basis.

Last edited by Gulliver Foyle; 31st October 2020 at 09:18 AM.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:22 AM   #427
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.

I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
Too small a number given the size and complexity of the US judicial system and the importance the Supreme Court has in deciding law.

Even with the best will in the world, the current number of Supreme Court justices is too small to ensure proper delivery of the job the Supreme Court was set up to do. Either take powers off the court and grant them to new bodies or drastically increase the number of judges.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:27 AM   #428
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
The US isn't El Salvador. Public opinion here doesn't resemble public opinion in El Salvador. Our government doesn't resemble the government of El Salvador.

So why would you think that's relevant?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:37 AM   #429
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,256
Do I want to believe fervent assurances of Nazi soldier about safety of that Jew family? Hmm hmm hmm.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 09:55 AM   #430
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
One argument is that you want the SC to remain unable to deal with many cases per year, to disincentivise frivolous appeals.
An Isaac Wunder order process would sort that out.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:00 AM   #431
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
... which some red state will immediately challenge in Federal Court, which will then be overturned by the Theologian Court of the United States.
And the Federal government can reply by asking them with which army will they be able to enforce their illegal decision.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:11 AM   #432
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The US isn't El Salvador. Public opinion here doesn't resemble public opinion in El Salvador. Our government doesn't resemble the government of El Salvador.

So why would you think that's relevant?
Because with the current split on the Supreme Court, without some serious adjustments being made to the way the courts system works, the situation in El Salvador will be the situation across most of the South, Centre and Mid-west within ten years.

Don't try to lie to me that this won't be the case. We both know it will, you want it. I, being a moral being, am horrified by it.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:14 AM   #433
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wow, you're really getting desperate to prove that your paranoia is justified.

Yeah, no. Traveling with a fetus inside your womb isn't kidnapping. That's just stupid. I mean really, really stupid.

Maybe stupid. But not impossible. If states are allowed to treat a fetus as a "person," why wouldn't they try to apply laws regarding "persons" to this particular "person?" Why do you insist an anti-abortion Supreme Court wouldn't protect abortion restrictions? They wouldn't even have to approve them; all they would have to do is decline to hear appeals from lower-court decisions. Considering the state laws that are being passed even while abortion is legal, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it will be anything goes.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:17 AM   #434
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
Too small a number given the size and complexity of the US judicial system and the importance the Supreme Court has in deciding law.

Even with the best will in the world, the current number of Supreme Court justices is too small to ensure proper delivery of the job the Supreme Court was set up to do. Either take powers off the court and grant them to new bodies or drastically increase the number of judges.
No matter how many justices you put on the SC, they would all have to read the briefs, hear the arguments and debate the decisions. The SC doesn't work in subcommittees. Expansion wouldn't affect the number of cases they could hear.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:41 AM   #435
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Do I want to believe fervent assurances of Nazi soldier about safety of that Jew family? Hmm hmm hmm.
"Nazi."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:42 AM   #436
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
Because with the current split on the Supreme Court, without some serious adjustments being made to the way the courts system works, the situation in El Salvador will be the situation across most of the South, Centre and Mid-west within ten years.

Don't try to lie to me that this won't be the case. We both know it will, you want it. I, being a moral being, am horrified by it.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.


Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Maybe stupid. But not impossible. If states are allowed to treat a fetus as a "person," why wouldn't they try to apply laws regarding "persons" to this particular "person?"
Because, again, state laws don't work that way regarding cross-state actions, and nobody want to make them work that way. There is no constituency to make such a monumental change either.

Quote:
Why do you insist an anti-abortion Supreme Court wouldn't protect abortion restrictions?
Because not everything is about abortion. Unlike the chicken littles here, they are going to actually consider the ramifications of such a change to how states relate to each other. And none of them are going to want to go down that road.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:48 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 10:58 AM   #437
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Nazi."
My point is ya guys have no credibility whatsoever. No one will fall for "I want and support X, but for some reason I will assure opponents of X that it surely won't happen" gig.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 11:10 AM   #438
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,116
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because not everything is about abortion.
Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 11:14 AM   #439
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
My point is ya guys have no credibility whatsoever. No one will fall for "I want and support X, but for some reason I will assure opponents of X that it surely won't happen" gig.
Where:

X = "criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion"

Nobody is saying they want and support X.

Plus, you've already been given evidence that state legislatures aren't actually interested in doing X. Not just Ziggurat's theoretical rebuttals. Actual evidence that the theory is correct.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2020, 11:31 AM   #440
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,090
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
....
Because, again, state laws don't work that way regarding cross-state actions, and nobody want to make them work that way. There is no constituency to make such a monumental change either.
....
But some states have already attempted to make it illegal to carry a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. The crime is committed within the original state. And that's at a time when abortion is legal. It's just not realistic to imagine that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, restrictions won't be increased any way legislators can get away with.

And it's also a mistake to imagine that what the majority wants matters much in the present environment. Most Americans support abortion rights, tougher gun laws, more social spending, etc., etc. But they're not running Congress or the courts or the red state legislatures.

Last edited by Bob001; 31st October 2020 at 11:37 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.