US Politics Thread

[Dax777]

I know how it was used. Without thought. As with most absolutes. In fact, a very important point is that one of the nine people in the nation who actually could be responsible for immediately altering the availability of contraception has suggested that such could be a logical outcome of his thought process. So in fact, “no one” is completely fucking wrong.

This is disingenuous language as usual. No one is stopping anyone from using contraception. Even if they don't think you have a constitutional right that contraception be provided to you No one.

You agreed stare decisis was A point. Wow, how in-depth. A whole sentence. What an analysis. So glad we had that fascinating chat. What an intellect. Amazing. Applause all around. Way to move the discussion forward.

We don't have chats. You insult, attempt to ridicule and belittle. And when you can you try to show that unbelievable superior intelligence of yours. :)

So every now and then when you actually say something worthwhile, I acknowledge it and move on. It's not like attempting to discuss with you goes anywhere.

Of course, you haven’t agreed nor suggested that it’s the most important point. Maybe you don’t think it is,

It isn't 'the most important point'.
It is important and should carry weight.

but if you did, then you’d be in a pickle because then you’d have to agree with me. As you’d prefer to try to “own” nearly everyone on the board and as this is, in my opinion, your most important if not only reason for being here, the two options you offer are either (1) nothing, and (2) disagreement. So, yeah — not a peep.

I don't agree with you ofcourse. And you know that. Hence why a question on the core point of our difference would have been relevant.

But since I know how you are, it's not worth the honest engagement.

Finally, I don’t hate it when you ask questions. I just don’t answer your questions because I don’t like you.

And that's why I don't take our interactions seriously. I don't expect a good faith response from you. So I treat interactions with you as such :)

 

[Dax777]

All your points that refer to contraception are now at risk because of the decision in Dobbs per Thomas and his comments re: Griswold and due process. And the wrecking ball taken to stare decisis is going to make it very hard for the majority who ruled in Dobbs to somehow get out of overturning Griswold IMO.

Not really! I know you read Kavanaugh's Concurring opinion. So you know the above isn't true. But whatever. I don't expect much good faith from you.

 

[Dax777]

You go man. It gives more of your mentally ill to shoot at in schools.

I find it unbelievable that you‘d just go, “yeah, that’s legal process”.

What if the next law is minorities in New York will all be deported?

Will you still be “yeah, it’s the legal process”.

Exactly! It's why upholding bad laws are a bad idea.

What if the next set of Justices find a Constitutional right to deport all black people from New York like you said? Should that stand too?

This ruling overturned the finding of a right that wasn't in the Constitution. I'd rather we don't have a habit of leaving it in the hands of 9 unelected folks, the power to make laws.

In a democracy, it's best to leave that power to the people and their elected representatives.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Not really! I know you read Kavanaugh's Concurring opinion. So you know the above isn't true. But whatever. I don't expect much good faith from you.

Kavanaugh said there’s no threat. Didn’t spell out why. Because this is abortion and those, uh, aren’t, I guess? He also refused to answer whether Roe was correct but implied the precedent of Casey mattered as stare decisis in effect during his hearing. Then in his opinion, said, “Oh wait, no it doesn’t, because some states disagree. They just enacted stricter rules, so therefore Casey must not matter.” Then he said people will be mad whatever we rule today (despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of Americans think abortion should be legal), but, hey, thems the breaks.

So maybe the one not to expect good faith from is, you know, Kavanaugh.

Anyhow I look forward to exercising my democratic rights — of course, that one party is trying all it can to subvert them is another issue, but hey ho.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What if the next set of Justices find a Constitutional right to deport all black people from New York like you said? Should that stand too?

Blacks are a protected class. So are women. Also fetuses aren’t.

What if the people vote to deport all blacks? Or — in what would likely be a landslide victory for the rest of us — just you? Should that stand?

Stare decisis has you all twisted about. “Bad law” — 50 years of it, with precedent on precedent, and 50 percent more Americans supporting it than against it — but no way for a national referendum. We are a proportional representative democracy, not a democracy, which is why these things get sticky, and we accept that til we change it.

I’m ready though. Up til now I had never supported the abolishment of the Electoral College and was staunchly against expanding the court. I’ve changed my mind. A court like this risks installing a permanent tyranny of the minority. They know goddamn good and well how the majority feel, despite Kavanaugh’s chickenshit view about “26 states” (with well less than half the population, dickhead) and what this risks in terms of real American lives ruined, rights restricted rather than expanded. I’ll put it simply — in no pragmatic world do the rights of the unborn supplant the rights of the born. They do not surpass, and they do not equal. One can feel otherwise, but one cannot legislate otherwise. Once the state accepts a conception certificate rather than a birth certificate for my child, maybe I’ll think differently.

But these things go in cycles. When a future super-left court cites Dobbs as carte blanche to throw out “bad law”, I can’t wait to see you here singing their praises.

 

[Dax777]

Kavanaugh said there’s no threat. Didn’t spell out why. Because this is abortion and those, uh, aren’t, I guess? He also refused to answer whether Roe was correct.

As he should. It's unbecoming of Judges pre-judge or signal to possiblw claimants how they may rule.

Justices are supposed to deal with cases and controversies in their courts. Not hypotheticals during confirmation. Senators know this. Yet they play to the crowd. Hmmm! That reminds me of someone :)

but implied the precedent of Casey mattered as stare decisis in effect during his hearing. Then in his opinion, said, “Oh wait, no it doesn’t, because some states disagree. They just enacted stricter rules, so therefore Casey must not matter.” Then he said people will be mad whatever we rule today (despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of Americans think abortion should be legal), but, hey, thems the breaks.

1. Casey is important as precedent. Stare decisis is very important as a bedrock principle of jurisprudence. But it is not the only thing that matter. Again, everyone knows this.

2. If 2/3 of Americana think Abortion should be legal, then it will be.

So maybe the one not to expect good faith from is, you know, Kavanaugh.

If you say so.

Anyhow I look forward to exercising my democratic rights — of course, that one party is trying all it can to subvert them is another issue, but hey ho.

There you go. Like I keep saying. Foggy gets it. Even when he beats around the bush and pretends otherwise.

 

[Dax777]

Blacks are a protected class. So are women. Also fetuses aren’t.

What if the people vote to deport all blacks? Or — in what would likely be a landslide victory for the rest of us — just you? Should that stand?

Stare decisis has you all twisted about. “Bad law” — 50 years of it, with precedent on precedent, and two-thirds of Americans supporting it — but no way for a national referendum. We are a proportional representative democracy, not a democracy, which is why these things get sticky, and we accept that til we change it.

I’m ready though. Up til now I had never supported the abolishment of the Electoral College and was staunchly against expanding the court. I’ve changed my mind.

Oh wow! You've gone full blown whiner. Ready to throw your toys out when things don't go the way you want. That's disappointing.

But these things go in cycles. When a future super-left court cites Dobbs as carte blanche to throw out “bad law”, I can’t wait to see you here singing their praises.

I agree these things go in cycles. And If a Court in my opinion wrongly decides a case, I'd say it did. And move on. Won't throw out my toys though like you are doing now. And start threatening the foundation of the Country or the Courts.

But hey, to each his own.


Let's

 

[SebastianBlue]

Not really! I know you read Kavanaugh's Concurring opinion. So you know the above isn't true. But whatever. I don't expect much good faith from you.

It is truly astounding that someone that has time and time again vigorously argued that claims made in this thread were very unlikely (or impossible), of which most then later came to pass, effectively making you one of the (if not the) worst (most often wrong) analysts in this discussion, still somehow maintains the hubris to post naive, condescending drivel like this.

The number of times you implied I was an idiot that had little understanding of US politics for arguing that Trump and his cronies would do anything they could to overturn any loss of the 2020 election alone could be it’s own thread.

You are wrong so often that it would be easier to count the times you were right, but you still continue to act as if you are the preimminent authority on the US political system and discourse. When, in reality, most in here use you as a high confidence inverse indicator of what is likely to happen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Exactly! It's why upholding bad laws are a bad idea.

What if the next set of Justices find a Constitutional right to deport all black people from New York like you said? Should that stand too?

This ruling overturned the finding of a right that wasn't in the Constitution. I'd rather we don't have a habit of leaving it in the hands of 9 unelected folks, the power to make laws.

In a democracy, it's best to leave that power to the people and their elected representatives.

Striking down a law enacted by a people’s elected representatives (NY gun law) *is* making a law. Interpreting the constitution (the highest law of the land) *is* making law.

Surely you can’t be so naive (and/or stupid) to not understand this?

 

[Dax777]

It is truly astounding that someone that has time and time again vigorously argued that claims made in this thread were very unlikely (or impossible), of which most then later came to pass, effectively making you one of the (if not the) worst (most often wrong) analysts in this discussion, still somehow maintains the hubris to post naive, condescending drivel like this.

Hi Sebastianblue. Hope you are doing well.

The number of times you implied I was an idiot that had little understanding of US politics for arguing that Trump and his cronies would do anything they could to overturn any loss of the 2020 election alone could be it’s own thread.

You are wrong so often that it would be easier to count the times you were right, but you still continue to act as if you are the preimminent authority on the US political system and discourse. When, in reality, most in here use you as a high confidence inverse indicator of what is likely to happen.

At least, this wasn't all insults and abuses for a change. Mini steps I suppose.:)