Republicans: continued

Post Reply
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Wed May 15, 2019 3:35 pm

The majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas on the recent US Supreme Court decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt set aside stare decisis. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Breyer includes a clear warning that the conservative majority has shown a willingness to overturn established precedent if it conflicts with ideology.

'Supreme Court Justice Breyer Just Issued an Ominous Warning About Judicial Threats to Roe'
In Monday’s case, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overrule Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 decision that allowed an individual to sue a state in the courts of another state. While the conservative judges voted in favor of states’ rights, Breyer argued that “stare decisis requires us to follow Hall, not overrule it.”

In his dissent, Breyer cites Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of precedent. Then, Breyer issued what many are viewing as a warning given recent legislation restricting abortion in states such as Ohio and Georgia, calling the disregard for states’ right precedent “dangerous.”

“The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall even though it is a well-reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it,” Breyer wrote. “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.”

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Wed May 15, 2019 3:42 pm

Trickle-down economics continues to be demonstrated to be a lie. The justifications offered by Republicans for their tax cut gift to the wealthy and large corporations were false. Anybody who professed to believe them was either hopelessly ignorant and naive or a Republican stooge.

'AT&T promised 7,000 new jobs to get tax break—it cut 23,000 jobs instead'
AT&T has cut more than 23,000 jobs since receiving a big tax cut at the end of 2017, despite lobbying heavily for the tax cut by claiming that it would create thousands of jobs.

AT&T in November 2017 pushed for the corporate tax cut by promising to invest an additional $1 billion in 2018, with CEO Randall Stephenson saying that "every billion dollars AT&T invests is 7,000 hard-hat jobs. These are not entry-level jobs. These are 7,000 jobs of people putting fiber in ground, hard-hat jobs that make $70,000 to $80,000 per year."

The corporate tax cut was subsequently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017. The tax cut reportedly gave AT&T an extra $3 billion in cash in 2018.

But AT&T cut capital spending and kept laying people off after the tax cut. A union analysis of AT&T's publicly available financial statements "shows the telecom company eliminated 23,328 jobs since the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed in late 2017, including nearly 6,000 in the first quarter of 2019," the Communications Workers of America (CWA) said yesterday.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 22904
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed May 15, 2019 4:34 pm

There's a lady from an Alabama anti-abortion group on the radio at the moment suggesting the option of the death penalty for physicians who perform abortions and prison time for mothers. Her hope is that the change in law in Alabama will ultimate give SCOTUS the impetus to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortion nationwide. Her argument is that a foetus is a person, and has all the rights and protections of a person: killing a person is wrong, and so doctors need to be killed by the state to show people that killing is wrong. She also wants to make it a class A felony for women to travel out-state for abortion services.

One things for sure, Evangelical Christians shouldn't be put in charge of deciding things on behalf of everybody else.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 33975
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Svartalf » Wed May 15, 2019 4:56 pm

well evangelical christians ought to be deported to Guyana and made to drink the kool aid.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10675
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed May 15, 2019 5:02 pm

They are well organized and have been incredibly successful in this country.

However, their more radical views are at odds with most Americans, and increasingly so. However, however, that doesn't mean they can't do irreparable damage on their way out.
shut up

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27172
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Wed May 15, 2019 5:16 pm

Kill the fetuses. We have no shortage of fetuses, we have an excess.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 15, 2019 5:46 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 3:35 pm
The majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas on the recent US Supreme Court decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt set aside stare decisis. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Breyer includes a clear warning that the conservative majority has shown a willingness to overturn established precedent if it conflicts with ideology.

'Supreme Court Justice Breyer Just Issued an Ominous Warning About Judicial Threats to Roe'
In Monday’s case, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overrule Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 decision that allowed an individual to sue a state in the courts of another state. While the conservative judges voted in favor of states’ rights, Breyer argued that “stare decisis requires us to follow Hall, not overrule it.”

In his dissent, Breyer cites Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of precedent. Then, Breyer issued what many are viewing as a warning given recent legislation restricting abortion in states such as Ohio and Georgia, calling the disregard for states’ right precedent “dangerous.”

“The majority has surrendered to the temptation to overrule Hall even though it is a well-reasoned decision that has caused no serious practical problems in the four decades since we decided it,” Breyer wrote. “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.”
Mother Jones overstates the matter by far. I just read through the opinion and Breyer's dissent. The Majority opinion doesn't go off half-cocked, and overrule the precedent without cause. It is a reasoned opinion, and devotes its final section to explaining the grounds on which case precedent is overruled and the factors taken into account. Breyer disagrees, and thinks that even if Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to because it didn't cause many issues in the last 40 years. He closes the dissent by stating that the opinion will cause people to wonder what other precedent will be reversed - he does not suggest what other precedent will be considered to be a wrong constitutional decision. He cites Planned Parenthood v Casey, because that case discussed the issue of whether the SCOTUS reverses itself. So, people are taking this as implying some sort of telegraphed intention to reverse Roe v Wade. Only, Planned Parenthood v Casey did, partially, reverse Roe v Wade, by changing the rule about "regulating" abortion, while retaining the rule about "restricting" abortion.

The SCOTUS has many times reversed itself. This isn't some new "ominous" sign. Lochner was reversed by the Parrish decision, for example (in 1905 SCOTUS said the states can't invade freedom of contract by limiting the number of hours a baker can agree to work, but in 1937, the SCOTUS reversed itself and said never mind, the Constitution didn't require what we said it required, after 32 years of "settled" precedent....

Adler v Board of Ed decided in 1952 that teachers who were fired under a New York law which allowed schools to fire teachers who were members of the Communist Party were out of luck, because the law was Constitutional. In the 1960s, however, that was reversed in the Keyishian case which ruled that such a law violated free speech and association rights of the teachers. SCOTUS reversed itself.

Lawrence v Texas reversed Bowers v Hardwick, and Loving v Virginia overturned Pace v Alabama - and Austin v Michigan was reviersed by Citizens United v FEC - all three rightly so, in my book - which demonstrates that some decisions are wrong, and that the Court being allowed to correct its own errors is important.

Wolf v Colorado being reversed by Mapp v Ohio is an interesting one. There, the Wolf case involved a doctor who was arrested for a crime, and the cops had obtained evidence through a warrantless search and the evidence was illegally seized. The SCOTUS at that time said that the Constitution did not require (because nothing in the Constitution says) that evidence improperly seized without a warrant has to be excluded from evidence at trial. That "exclusionary rule" was created in Mapp when it reversed Wolf, saying that evidence seized improperly was to be excluded from trial, even if that means a person goes free when the evidence shows his guilt. SCOTUS reversed its prior precedent on that.

And, of course, one of the most famous reversals is Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal) being reversed by Brown v Board of Education.

So, the SCOTUS seems to reverse itself from time to time. But, there is a political motive to make it seem "ominous" -- they're coming for you! SCOTUS is up there scheming -- well the evil justices - not the good, kind, wonderful Democrat leaning ones - the evil justices are up there scheming and twirling their mustaches, setting the stage, moving the chess pieces, to make sure they can reverse Roe v Wade. Given that the case cited in the article doesn't add a power to the SCOTUS that it didn't already have, it's unclear how it makes it "easier" for a reversal. You mean after many times over the last 235 years that the SCOTUS has reversed itself, it's now this opinion - this is the one -- this is the harbinger of doom for Roe v Wade?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 15, 2019 5:51 pm

Tero wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:16 pm
Kill the fetuses. We have no shortage of fetuses, we have an excess.
I'm pro choice, and that's a statement I find difficult to reconcile with someone with even a modicum of empathy or kindness.

Have you ever see 3D and 4D ultrasounds of fetuses? Have you followed your own children's development?

I recognize abortion has to be available, but to take such a casual attitude toward it - well, you have a right to such an attitude and to express it - but, it's rather distasteful, to say the least.

We have an excess of people, too. Are you in favor of killing them to cut their numbers down?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27172
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Wed May 15, 2019 5:55 pm

Put it in school in 8th grade. Show the fetuses. Put girls over 13 on birth control. For free.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10675
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed May 15, 2019 6:02 pm

:lol: We can't get everyone vaccinated, good luck with birth "control" Tero! Maybe if you rebrand it,

"birth stabilizer" --what, are we flying? :hehe:

"the equalizer"

"freedom pills"

"it could also be Trump"

-- :dunno:
shut up

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 15, 2019 6:06 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:02 pm
They are well organized and have been incredibly successful in this country.

However, their more radical views are at odds with most Americans, and increasingly so. However, however, that doesn't mean they can't do irreparable damage on their way out.
Their success is a bit of an overstatement, since at bottom, in most of the US, abortion is as free as it is in Europe, which countries place restrictions on abortions all over the place. Some countries in Europe require them all to be performed in hospitals - which of course in the US would be portrayed as rabidly anti-abortion, because we have walk in abortion clinics here. And, some European countries require doctors - plural - to sign off on the "need" for abortion. And, most of the Euro countries effectively cut off abortions at 20 or 22 weeks or so -- nobody seems up in arms about it.

Even in Canada, where they have no abortion "law" -- they skate the issue aside by leaving it to the self-regulating medical profession - and as such, they don't perform abortions past about 20 weeks. The great thing about Canada's system is that it results in most abortions being done early, or so the reports I've read say. Very few are beyond 20 weeks = like 2.7%,a nd the medical profession won't allow them on demand except early on. They are done to protect against serious threats to the mother, and serious defects in the infant. All of which makes sense to me. I would be inclined to do that in the US - just get rid of all legislation about it, and go with Canada's medical standards.

But there were complaints about Canada's system too - like how people rail on US states that have few abortion clinics --- up until 2017 there were ZERO abortion providers in Prince Edward Island province, but then they got.... one. So.... all our countries have differences among states. Maybe not tiny blips like the Netherregions, because it's so small it's like a county in a big country -- but with large countries with diverse populations, you get an uneven society.

I think we in the US get some seriously heightened attention that folks around the world don't give their own countries. It's an outrage in the US, but a similar or even more restrictive law or regulation in a European country gets little to no comment or criticism.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 15, 2019 6:11 pm

Tero wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:55 pm
Put it in school in 8th grade. Show the fetuses. Put girls over 13 on birth control. For free.
Did you intend that to be in English, or is that in Finnish? "Put it in school in the 8th grade. Show the fetuses." LOL. What's "it?" Show the fetuses - they do show the fetuses in health classes at that age, and in biology. Nobody is unclear about what a fetus is.

"Put girls over 13 on birth control." LOL. How about stay the fuck out of people's business? If they want birth control, they can get it. I'm not "putting" them on anything. However, I have no objection to a teenage girl taking chemical birth control under the care of a doctor, or buying over the counter contraceptives. Seems like that's the way it is now.

We have a surplus population, Mr. Scrooge. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 15, 2019 6:15 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:34 pm
There's a lady from an Alabama anti-abortion group on the radio at the moment suggesting the option of the death penalty for physicians who perform abortions and prison time for mothers. Her hope is that the change in law in Alabama will ultimate give SCOTUS the impetus to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortion nationwide. Her argument is that a foetus is a person, and has all the rights and protections of a person: killing a person is wrong, and so doctors need to be killed by the state to show people that killing is wrong. She also wants to make it a class A felony for women to travel out-state for abortion services.
Extreme nutter. No matter what one's position on abortion, in my view one has to recognize that no matter what there will be times when abortion is a necessity, medically speaking. It's not possible to have it completely banned. To say that this is an area where people should be jailed or executed is absurd, in my view. Throwing people in Shawshank in order to punish them for having or performing abortions is barbaric, in my opinion. I would absolutely oppose this lady's cause, 100%.

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:34 pm

One things for sure, Evangelical Christians shouldn't be put in charge of deciding things on behalf of everybody else.
Amen, brother.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10675
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed May 15, 2019 6:18 pm

My view of their success is definitely biased by living around them and seeing their efforts in the things I read and watch. But I don't think I've overstated it.

In the other places we're talking about is there opposition to abortion on the scale we see here? Also, is that opposition rooted in religion? I routinely read about evangelical influence on our legislation in the US.
shut up

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27172
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Wed May 15, 2019 7:05 pm

it's pretty much 100% religion and "feelings." Same reason they love puppies and want to save every critter found half dead. No politics or practical angles. if god gave you a defective baby, then that is what you deserve.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests