Republicans: continued

Post Reply
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 7:14 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
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.

In the other places we're talking about, they don't seem to mind restrictions and regulations on abortion. The same restrictions proposed here in the US are invariably cast as unacceptable intrusions, whereas having doctors required to approve abortions and having abortions only done in hospitals in European countries is seen as normal and appropriate. Some Euro countries, like Ireland, had abortion illegal until like 6 months ago. Yet, the outrage is focused on the US.

I also am amused how in some threads, the argument for democracy is made, that the US focus on "Rights" and limitations on government power - our talk of "freedums" and such - are outdated concepts and that the democratic process is all that's needed and should control. If the majority votes, then that's it. However, we come to abortion and the Alabamans vote overwhelmingly in favor of abortion restrictions - and suddenly, democracy doesn't look so good anymore. Seems to prove my point in the other arguments about how democracy can result in the tyranny of the majority and oppression - and so a constitutionally limited republic with limitations on government power over individuals in the areas of fundamental rights are as important as the right to vote and democracy.

We have a right to abortion in the US. States are testing the limits of that right. I highly doubt that the Roe v Wade precedent is going to be overturned. It's not just one case - it's a series of cases refining the right to privacy and right to abortion and its limits. The notion that the Court will hand down a ruling that says a state is not limited in its power to restrict abortions is, I think, highly unlikely to occur. They'd have to reverse not one SCOTUS precedent, but at least three that I can think of, probably more.
“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 7:25 pm

Tero wrote:
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.
Some people probably feel that way. But since when are you worried about people's opinions on important issues being based on more than "feelings?" That seems to be your "go to" decision point. LOL.

What do you think constitutes a "defective" baby? Intersex? LOL. What would you say to a mom who chooses to abort a fetus? What wold you say to a mom who chooses to abort an intersex fetus because it was intersex?

There are secular arguments against abortion. In the most civilized and enlightened, dare we say "progressive," country of Finland, approval for an abortion requires the signature of at least one physician (and in some cases, two), and in some cases additional permission from Valvira (the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health). The period of the pregnancy also affects the granting of permission. The key periods are 0-12 weeks, 13-20 weeks, and over 20 weeks. One doctor's signature is enough in the case of terminations 0-12 weeks when the applicant is under 17 years old or has passed her 40th birthday, or if the applicant has already given birth to 4 or more children, regardless of age. Otherwise two doctors' signatures are required. Reference to Valvira for review and decision is needed in all cases between 13-20 weeks; or when there are grounds that the fetus is abnormal (in which case the 20 weeks is extended to 24 weeks); or in any case where the doctor has given a negative decision. Above 20 weeks, a threat to the physical life of the mother is the only valid reason for terminating a pregnancy.

What would you say if an American State proposed a law that said "Above 20 weeks, abortion is illegal absent a threat to the physical life of the mother?" 20 weeks, dude.

Is it the overly religious "feelings" based Finns that are proposing such draconian anti-abortion regulations?

My GOD man! doctors have to sign off on a woman's right to choose ,even in 0-12 weeks!!! What an invasion into their decision-making process! And, what an invasion of bodily autonomy!

I am sure the streets in Finland are rife with pro-abortion protesters trying to remedy these horrible wrongs! So terrible...so terrible...
“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
Seabass
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Seabass » Wed May 15, 2019 8:26 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 6:15 pm
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.
Get the fuck outta here with this shit. Christ, it's like a supporter of the Nazi party expressing agreement with the statement "racists shouldn't be put in charge of deciding things on behalf of everybody else." For fuck's sake. :fp:
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. ―H.L. Mencken

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad. —Thomas Frank

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. —Einstein
I’m a nationalist. —Trump

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Hermann Göring

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28558
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 8:34 pm

There is a bright side to these abortion laws! You are allowed to do ultrasound. If the baby would not survive at birth (severe neurological disorders) you can still abort! No need to carry defective baby to term.

Ultrasound does not reveal genetic disorders, and most would not qualify. Downs etc babies.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Seabass » Wed May 15, 2019 11:06 pm

Monsters walk among us. We call them... "Republicans".

Image
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. ―H.L. Mencken

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad. —Thomas Frank

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. —Einstein
I’m a nationalist. —Trump

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Hermann Göring

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28558
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 11:31 pm

Onion does Alabama abortion bill.It's only slightly gross. No fetuses etc.
https://local.theonion.com/abused-12-ye ... 1834787176
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu May 16, 2019 2:59 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:46 pm
Mother Jones overstates the matter by far. [Snipped dubious justification for this assertion.]
Since your propounding on matters of law is inevitably roused in support of the legal reasoning of conservative ideologues, it's no surprise that you've chosen to fawn over Thomas's decision while dismissing Breyer's dissent. The problem is that Breyer does an effective job of eviscerating Thomas's specious claims regarding the basis of mandatory sovereign immunity as applied to states.

Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any provision for such mandatory sovereign immunity, neither is there any solid historical basis for it. Even Thomas's historical authority, de Vattel, says that sovereign immunity is based on consent and convention--in de Vattel's time it was conditional and not absolute. That principle still obtains in international law, which has in fact become more restrictive in regard to claims of sovereign immunity, not less. Thomas and the majority construct their doctrine of mandatory sovereign immunity for states by ignoring this and engaging in the same finding of implicit constitutional principles that 'originalists' and 'strict constructionists' like Thomas are supposedly so suspicious of. As this decision shows, Thomas quite happily finds unstated elements in the US Constitution when it suits his ideological agenda.

There is also the question of infringement by the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment. Breyer: 'Compelling States to grant immunity to their sister States would risk interfering with sovereign rights that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States,' and 'While reaffirming Hall might harm States seeking sovereign immunity, overruling Hall would harm States seeking to control their own courts.'

The majority decision here does not justify pooh-poohing Breyer's warning regarding throwing out stare decisis. Breyer doesn't say that even if the decision in Hall was wrong, it should be adhered to because it didn't cause problems. He cites the principle that 'an argument that we got something wrong—even a good argument to that effect—cannot by itself justify scrapping settled precedent' (emphasis mine). He goes on to state that Hall is not obviously wrong. To me it's clear that if it were obviously wrong, Thomas wouldn't have had to spend so much time attempting to justify overturning it. The final paragraph of the dissent it telling:
It is one thing to overrule a case when it “def[ies] practical workability,” when “related principles of law have so
far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine,” or when “facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 854–855. It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question. 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. Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next. I respectfully dissent.
I think that Antonin Scalia was correct (Thomas 'doesn't believe in stare decisis, period'). Instead Thomas specifically relies on his originalist understanding of the Constitution to claim that Hall 'failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity.' While Breyer shows that claim is unfounded, Thomas nonetheless is a staunch originalist, if not a notably consistent one.

In any event, as Jay Michaelson writes:
This [whether originalism/strict constructionalism should rule the day] is the central question in cases like Roe and Obergefell. No one denies that abortion was banned for much of our country’s history, and that same-sex marriage would have been anathema to the Founders of the republic. The debate is over whether history gets a vote or a veto.

If this same standard is applied to Roe and Obergefell, they would go down in flames.
Further, Thomas is on record stating that he believes Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided.' Given his willingness to scrap stare decisis in service of his ideology (and the conservative majority on the court's willingness to follow him down that path) there is good reason for those who support a woman's right to control her own body to be apprehensive regarding what might happen when one of the bullshit state laws outlawing abortion makes its way to the US Supreme Court.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38435
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Animavore » Thu May 16, 2019 4:31 am

MI Lawmaker: Abortions “Should Be Painful”; Women Must “Allow God to Take Over”
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... P-KkF_WmxQ
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62237
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by JimC » Thu May 16, 2019 5:23 am

Fuck off, christian arseholes...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38435
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Animavore » Thu May 16, 2019 10:15 am

Image

Ouch!
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38435
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Animavore » Thu May 16, 2019 10:19 am




I suppose this goes in here.
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24636
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 16, 2019 11:12 am

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
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28558
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 12:01 pm

33994EFF-1C5A-4EEF-AA2C-173DB566BD6C.jpeg
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28558
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Thu May 16, 2019 12:06 pm

7CE22FDF-E7CB-46EB-B094-6524F43103CC.jpeg
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: 11536
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu May 16, 2019 12:54 pm

Image
shut up

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests