IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 abortion

Reply
Old 26th June 2022, 02:53 PM   #161
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).
The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865. No Confederate state voted as they had no representatives in Congress. It was only ratified in Dec. 1865 after the war ended the preceding April because its ratification was a requirement for the ex-Confederate states to get representation in Congress again. Otherwise, it never would have passed ratification.

Quote:
Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 26th June 2022 at 02:58 PM.
Stacyhs 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 26th June 2022, 02:56 PM   #162
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Possible actions by Congress continued, a link within the link in my above post:
538

Quote:
Who Can Stop The Supreme Court?
Congress and the president have historically reined in the justices when they’ve gone against public opinion.

... In the past, Congress, the president and state governments have openly defied controversial Supreme Court rulings. Congress can also regulate the types of cases the court is allowed to hear or dilute a recalcitrant majority by “packing” the court with ideologically sympathetic justices.

... But when they have, the court avoided formal retaliation — like being remade into a 15-member chamber — because the justices ultimately backed down. ...

Perhaps the most famous example of a Supreme Court brought to task by the other branches of government was in the 1930s, which also happened to be the last time the court was controlled by a strong conservative majority. The country was in the depths of the Great Depression, and the Supreme Court was aggressively striking down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s progressive economic legislation, which was widely popular at the time. Finally, Roosevelt announced a plan to increase the size of the court by as many as six justices. The scheme ultimately collapsed in Congress — and may have done some damage to Roosevelt’s popularity in the process — but not before one of the right-leaning justices suddenly began voting to uphold New Deal laws that were identical to ones he had voted to gut only a year earlier.

... When the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt Reconstruction’s progress, Congress repeatedly changed the size of the court for political ends and revoked the court’s ability to review a case that could have threatened military rule in the South — a decision the court itself upheld. ...

Even in moments when the court has taken steps to shore up a controversial decision, a backlash has first delayed the enforcement of the ruling and eventually set the stage for the court to back down.
Again the article is much longer and includes the historical details where these actions actually were taken by Congress to rein in the SCOTUS.
Skeptic Ginger 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 26th June 2022, 03:26 PM   #163
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,156
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".
'Fun' fact; Facebook has marked that picture as threatening violence and not in line with their community standards. People are being suspended and banned for posting it.

Actual threats by right wingers don't count, but pro-Roe signs get marked down in a day.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 26th June 2022, 05:00 PM   #164
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,067
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Possible actions by Congress:
NC scholar: With Roe gone, Congress should suspend the Supreme CourtReading the whole article is worthwhile. There's a lot more I didn't quote.

Also, the comments are full of right-wing trolls. They could use a few more intelligent replies.
Seriously that was written by a law-school prof who claims that Congress can suspend the Supreme Court. Sounds more like Dick the Butcher.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 26th June 2022, 05:54 PM   #165
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,378
Can Congress strip a co-equal branch of government of its powers? Isn't that contradictory. But the argument that Congress can is based on Article III of the Constitution which states: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Below is a quote from a blog published in 2020 by legal firm Rasmussen Dickey Moore, published as Amy Comey Barrett was being sworn in.

Quote:
This “exception” clause has been accepted as giving Congress the power to remove appellate review from the Supreme Court. But Congress can never remove the Court’s original jurisdiction over disputes between states, actions involving various public officials, disputes between the United States and a state, and proceedings by a state against the citizens or aliens of another state. The sanctity of original jurisdiction was enshrined in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Jurisdiction stripping is not a new idea. Congress stripped the Supreme Court of the power to hear specific cases as early as 1869 in Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 and continues to do so. RDM link

I guess there were lawyers who saw this coming.
newyorkguy is online now   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 26th June 2022, 06:01 PM   #166
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
'Fun' fact; Facebook has marked that picture as threatening violence and not in line with their community standards. People are being suspended and banned for posting it.

Actual threats by right wingers don't count, but pro-Roe signs get marked down in a day.
It's because the right-wingers report posts en masse. They have flooded the internet with their trolling POV.
Skeptic Ginger 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 26th June 2022, 06:02 PM   #167
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Seriously that was written by a law-school prof who claims that Congress can suspend the Supreme Court. Sounds more like Dick the Butcher.
And another link commented on by someone who clearly didn't read it.
Skeptic Ginger 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 26th June 2022, 06:14 PM   #168
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Can Congress strip a co-equal branch of government of its powers? Isn't that contradictory. But the argument that Congress can is based on Article III of the Constitution which states: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Below is a quote from a blog published in 2020 by legal firm Rasmussen Dickey Moore, published as Amy Comey Barrett was being sworn in.

I guess there were lawyers who saw this coming.
There are examples of these actions that were actually put in place by Congress in my links.

The thing is, who is going to enforce the SCOTUS decisions if the Congress passed legislation overriding them? And that needs to start right now with federal legislation codifying the right to choose.

In the past some Southern states tried to ignore civil rights legislation to desegregate schools and the federal government sent in troops to enforce the legislation. If the Democrats retain control of the Congress and the Presidency, who is going to stop them protecting abortion rights in states that want to ban abortions?

It means we need to show overwhelming strength this Nov. If we keep letting the minority rule, even after this, then we are in big trouble because this Christian theocracy is not going to stop at banning abortions.
Skeptic Ginger 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 26th June 2022, 09:02 PM   #169
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Quote:
Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.
After the recent ruling you still trust the SC more than the states?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 26th June 2022, 11:24 PM   #170
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Quote:
Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
After the recent ruling you still trust the SC more than the states?
That does not change history nor the fact that yes, some states are that untrustworthy.
Several SC cases have dealt with states and redistricting around race. Guess which states were the most egregious? Hint: they weren't on the West Coast or in New England.

Shaw v. Reno, (1993) North Carolina
Miller v. Johnson, (1995) Georgia
Cooper v. Harris, (2017) North Carolina
Stacyhs 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 26th June 2022, 11:27 PM   #171
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That does not change history nor the fact that yes, some states are that untrustworthy.
Several SC cases have dealt with states and redistricting around race. Guess which states were the most egregious? Hint: they weren't on the West Coast or in New England.

Shaw v. Reno, (1993) North Carolina
Miller v. Johnson, (1995) Georgia
Cooper v. Harris, (2017) North Carolina
Shhh! Considering the current make up of the SC, they might decide to revisit those cases again.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 27th June 2022, 07:18 AM   #172
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
And that still should have been a reason for the dems to have made it law... they have had numerous opportunities to do so and never bothered... and of course this is because they did not want to since most of them are staunchly religious themselves.
I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.
wareyin 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 27th June 2022, 07:30 AM   #173
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,086
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.
Yeah, I’d rather not depend on Republican incompetence and stray dissenting votes to keep that in place. Look at how the ACA barely survived 2016-2018.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 27th June 2022, 07:40 AM   #174
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Yeah, I’d rather not depend on Republican incompetence and stray dissenting votes to keep that in place. Look at how the ACA barely survived 2016-2018.
True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto 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 27th June 2022, 07:45 AM   #175
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,277
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.
Well, maybe that used to be true.
Delphic Oracle 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 27th June 2022, 09:36 AM   #176
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Well, maybe that used to be true.
True, it's not always so, and there are no guarantees, but I think that the longer a law exists, and is found livable, the harder it is to persuade people to get rid of it, so I would have been happier if the principle of Roe V. Wade had been legislated and been around for a while.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto 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 27th June 2022, 10:39 AM   #177
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.
Hindsight.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 27th June 2022 at 10:41 AM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 27th June 2022, 10:43 AM   #178
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 27,191
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
What the **** do you even mean?
Desperate efforts not to deal with recent events.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 27th June 2022, 11:05 AM   #179
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 18,913
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.
Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   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 27th June 2022, 11:19 AM   #180
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,621
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.
....
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.
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 27th June 2022, 11:31 AM   #181
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,277
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.
Several decisions over the last few weeks make it clear they have no intention of following any kind of Constitutionally based consistency in their rulings.
Delphic Oracle 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 27th June 2022, 12:46 PM   #182
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,479
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.
Isn't it at least notionally the other way around? The law would need to have some basis in the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Now, there has been at least 60 years where the court has allowed the powers of Congress to expand into territories previously thought reserved to the States, but there is nothing absolutely preventing that trend being reversed.
shuttlt 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 27th June 2022, 02:03 PM   #183
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Hindsight.
Yes, it's hindsight. Like the people now criticized by some for inaction, I did not think it necessary before. And yes, it should never have become an issue.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto 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 27th June 2022, 02:24 PM   #184
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,455
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Shhh! Considering the current make up of the SC, they might decide to revisit those cases again.
Probably. Eight wingers will do everything in their power to undermine basic human rights and freedom, and of course the right wing peanut gallery will cheer the whole way.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 27th June 2022, 02:36 PM   #185
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 18,913
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Quote:
Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.
You are talking about hardcore idealogues on the supreme court. They can come up with an excuse that is paper thin and totally defies rational thinking, and there is nothing that can be done to reverse their decision. They can do pretty much anything they want. When you have hundreds of years of supreme court rulings, not to mention centuries of civil law, dozens of documents written by founding fathers, etc. you can find SOMETHING to support your ruling, even if 99% of other sources say the complete opposite.

As I pointed out before... Alito actually referred to Matthew Hale (who prosecuted people for WITCHRAFT) when he wrote the abortion decision. If that's not a sign that "all sense of logic is gone" then I don't know what is.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   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 27th June 2022, 02:55 PM   #186
mikegriffith1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 445
The seven judges who gave us Roe v. Wade read miles between the lines of the Constitution to find a non-existent federal abortion right. Justice Marshall admitted years later that Roe was made up of "whole cloth." They ignored all precedent, and also ignored the fact that when the Constitution was ratified, several states had laws against abortion and not a single founding father expressed any concern about those laws.

Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.
__________________
Mike Griffith
Home Page
mikegriffith1 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 27th June 2022, 03:49 PM   #187
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,086
Just trolling at this point.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 27th June 2022, 04:56 PM   #188
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,170
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.
GOP doesn't seem to agree.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop...rictions-dobbs
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n 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 27th June 2022, 05:04 PM   #189
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Yes, it's hindsight. Like the people now criticized by some for inaction, I did not think it necessary before. And yes, it should never have become an issue.


Do you think I'm criticizing people for inaction?

Nope. I'm pointing out that there are things people can do who claim there is nothing they can do (presumably because they are in blue states or districts).

And it doesn't require more than they are doing right now, amplifying their sentiments on social media.

My point is to counter the pessimism and it's not magical thinking.
Skeptic Ginger 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 27th June 2022, 05:40 PM   #190
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


Do you think I'm criticizing people for inaction?

Nope. I'm pointing out that there are things people can do who claim there is nothing they can do (presumably because they are in blue states or districts).

And it doesn't require more than they are doing right now, amplifying their sentiments on social media.

My point is to counter the pessimism and it's not magical thinking.
REgarding criticism I was not referring to you. Others have indeed criticized the Democrats for not following up on Roe V. Wade with legislation. I think many thought (and it should have been true) that the right was affirmed, especially after 50 years. To note that we might have acted differently if we'd only known what reactionary insanity would come to power is not to misidentify the villains.

I have been hearing a good bit about how this recent judgment, an overall minority position, is motivating people to vote and take action. I am resolved to stay at least slightly optimistic in the hope that this is true, and that this whole thing ends up biting the reactionary trend in the ass. I am not convinced that it will, but we can hope.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto 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 27th June 2022, 05:50 PM   #191
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Re the impact of this Christian fundy decision on Nov election: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: The Overturning of Roe v. Wade, June 2022
Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade... More than Six in Ten Say Decision Will Push Them to the Polls in November
Quote:
In a majority decision, the United States Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade which, for nearly fifty years, guaranteed access to abortion in the United States. However, majorities of Americans oppose the Court’s ruling and have concerns that the decision will have broader constitutional implications. Following the decision, President Joe Biden asserted that Roe will be on the ballot in November. 61% of Americans agree, saying the Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections, and, by a double-digit margin (15 points), they think the decision will motivate them to vote for a congressional candidate who will support federal legislation that will restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.
CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Across demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. ...

While the overturning of Roe has elicited strong feelings, it's not an issue most Americans say has made them any more or less likely to vote in the midterms this year. But for those who report a change in motivation right now, Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say the Supreme Court's decision will make them more likely to vote.
Skeptic Ginger 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 27th June 2022, 06:11 PM   #192
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
The seven judges who gave us Roe v. Wade read miles between the lines of the Constitution to find a non-existent federal abortion right. Justice Marshall admitted years later that Roe was made up of "whole cloth." They ignored all precedent, and also ignored the fact that when the Constitution was ratified, several states had laws against abortion and not a single founding father expressed any concern about those laws.

Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.
Not a single Founding Father expressed any concern about the laws in the states denying women the right to vote or the fact that married women lost their legal identify, could not control their own money, own property, or sign legal documents. But, what the hell, right?
Stacyhs 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 27th June 2022, 07:46 PM   #193
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War
Posts: 49,400
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.
__________________
Counting the days to Civil War II.
shemp 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 27th June 2022, 08:02 PM   #194
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not a single Founding Father expressed any concern about the laws in the states denying women the right to vote or the fact that married women lost their legal identify, could not control their own money, own property, or sign legal documents. But, what the hell, right?
I can't find who said it now but it has been pointed out that taking an "originalist" view of the constitution means taking into account only the views of white male slave owners and disenfranchising the rest.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 27th June 2022, 10:11 PM   #195
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,621
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.
What votes? Election polls are snapshots in time. Candidates can gain or lose support in days. But polls about political and social beliefs tend to be reliable and consistent. Someone who supported Roe v. Wade last week or last month or 30 years ago is not likely to change his mind overnight. And numerous polls over years and decades indicate that a substantial majority of Americans want abortion to be legal and available on the terms, more or less, than Roe provides. If the issue was presented in a national referendum, legal abortion would win.
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 27th June 2022, 11:46 PM   #196
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.
Seems to be quite the theme here, this is no different than anything else we libruls said would matter.

Skeptic Ginger 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 28th June 2022, 12:52 AM   #197
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,932
The Republicans have plenty of time to make the hot topic something else by November. They'll get their base fired up about drag queens, or CRT, or some other ******** issue. They're one-issue voters, but that doesn't mean the one issue can't change. They're serial monogamists, in love with the latest "threat to America" of the moment.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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 28th June 2022, 02:07 AM   #198
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,807
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can't find who said it now but it has been pointed out that taking an "originalist" view of the constitution means taking into account only the views of white male slave owners and disenfranchising the rest.
This sounded familiar, so I did some checking

I think was Jeffrey Toobin, an American lawyer, author, political commentator and legal analyst for CNN

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...oking-backward

Toobin was talking about SC Justice Antonin Scalia a short time after his death - he said "But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century."

You can tell Toobin had little, if any respect for Scalia..... "Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy."

Difficult to argue with his point of view, and difficult to argue that this current SCOTUS seems hell-bent on continuing Scalia's work!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky 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 28th June 2022, 02:12 AM   #199
Warp12
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,941
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This sounded familiar, so I did some checking

I think was Jeffrey Toobin, an American lawyer, author, political commentator and legal analyst for CNN

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...oking-backward

Toobin was talking about SC Justice Antonin Scalia a short time after his death - he said "But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century."

You can tell Toobin had little, if any respect for Scalia..... "Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy."

Difficult to argue with his point of view, and difficult to argue that this current SCOTUS seems hell-bent on continuing Scalia's work!

To be fair, it is hard to take Toobin seriously, and especially the matter of whether he has respect for others. I disregard his opinion on Scalia.
Warp12 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 28th June 2022, 02:17 AM   #200
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,306
for the current SC, Scalia was a left-wing extremist who hated Christianity.
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza 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 05:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.