Evil Fluffy posted:Congress shouldn't need to pass a new VRA because Congress is explicitly the ultimate authority on voting rights, not the SCOTUS. Passing a new VRA that the GOP doesn't like would also result in it being struck down by this SCOTUS and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool at best. The way to enact legislation about voting rights that bind the SCOTUS is to amend the constitution. The issue we are facing today is that Congress is not even able to codify the rights the majority (Democrats) claims to be essential in regular law and relied on SCOTUS to find these rights in the ancient scripture. Now the new set of judges say "we actually don't think it's in there".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The way to enact legislation about voting rights that bind the SCOTUS is to amend the constitution. Or jurisdictional stripping, which has much lower requirements
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Even with a completely arbitrary and meaningless standard Alito managed to gently caress up. The smart folk have noted that in those old laws he cites, the anti-abortion laws didn't apply pre 'quickening' (~mid 2nd trimester). Meaning his cites literally contradict the argument! Hilariously the standard argument here is that our scientific knowledge has expanded and now we know heartbeats come so much earlier so we shouldn't be bound by what laws were back in the stupider ages. The constitution is a living document that has to keep pace with the times didn't you know
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:18
|
|
haveblue posted:Or jurisdictional stripping, which has much lower requirements But is not possible for cases in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, which makes it tenuous at best to insulate a law from SCOTUS review.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
SCOTUS almost never has original jurisdiction in constitutional-law cases:quote:In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
If the two political branches were united against SCOTUS, SCOTUS would be vastly outmatched. SCOTUS is so powerful because the political branches are gridlocked.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If the two political branches were united against SCOTUS, SCOTUS would be vastly outmatched. SCOTUS is so powerful because the political branches are gridlocked. And the court is dead-set on finishing off the only other semi-functioning center of power in the government, the executive agencies, by ending Chevron deference and making the agencies get explicit, specific permission from Congress for everything they do rather than getting handed a fairly broad umbrella of authority. As with Roberts telling Congress to re-reauthorize the VRA if they love it so much, they have zero illusions about the practical effect this would have.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The way to enact legislation about voting rights that bind the SCOTUS is to amend the constitution. A mere constitutional amendment didn't appear to bind SCOTUS in Shelby County.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yes, the legal reasoning behind it is irrelevant because it is an expression of political power. The Republicans finally got their reactionary majority so they could get rid of the salami slicing and just get the full repeal they've wanted for the last 50 years. Even if Roe was airtight, they would have just written something like "fetuses have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, therefore Roe is overturned" and it would have the same effect. If you read the draft opinion this is actually the only way he distinguished his ruling from all the other cases you can apply the exact same logic to (Loving, etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Even if the decision in Roe were the most airtight ironclad decision in Supreme Court history the conservative legal movement would've come up with some bullshit reasoning to overturn it. Alito "deals" (I use the word as loosely as it can possibly be used) with the equal protection argument in like a paragraph. They didn't go after Roe all this time because it was a legally shaky decision they went after it because they hate women. The other thing is that it's realpolitik to go after removing rights for non-white non-straight non-male people from the perspective of appealing to the Republican base's interests. The evangelical movement's current and past primary "thought" leaders pivoted to abortion after miscegenation proved to be unappealing (and it took them until after the majority of the rest of the country accepted that segregation of all sorts was wrong when it came to African Americans) as a way to rile the base up, get ridiculous sums of money for laundering hate speech into "religious" (and I use that word loosely as their beliefs have neither standing in ancient abrahamic religion's history, modern history, or any sort of history really) speech, and get people out to the polls in accordance with their alliance with the Republican's desires. Mind you, the place these radical extremist Christians are coming from is a position of hate, prejudice, ignorance, and prioritizing a murderous religious set of beliefs over human empathy but it unfortunately doesn't change the reality of the situation insofar as the Republicans go. Even if the Republican party becomes a permanent minority party (which it's slowly lurching towards in the vein of the Whigs, hence their increasing autocratic and anti-democratic leanings) it doesn't change that there is a politically active and extremely well funded movement of hate groups comprised of religious think tank/hate groups that motivate the extremist christian end of the base via the party political apparatus by constantly posing "jewish question" style debates over poo poo that's basic human rights and easy to figure out if you were born with the capacity to show empathy for other human beings. The fix for this is probably to start taxing the gently caress out of these organizations and churches as they are violating the separation of church and state and thus are political organizations and not at all religious in actual practice. Along with imposing heavy fines for hate speech meant to conduct a genocide, remove basic human rights like access to health care or employment, etc, etc. Unfortunately the question is how to get there*. *Especially since the Republicans have spent so long grifting our own homegrown version of ISIS (Let's be real, these people would straight up murder trans people/gay people/black people if the law didn't punish them for it.) that the grifters have started to age out and be replaced by the true believers. Couple this with a complex and entrenched party propaganda apparatus alongside willing collusion from agencies like Fox News in pursuing their agenda in exchange for money/looking the other way when the latest bigoted Fox News anchor does something monstrous and you have a lot of very corrupt groups that need to be dismantled by whatever means to get back to a healthy democracy. Archonex fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Traditionally, Christianity has had no problem with abortion and it wasn't even seen as controversial or even worth discussing much because obviously it comes down to a woman's choice. The entire debate was invented cynically as a way to drive a wedge between voters so conservatives could paint their opponents as baby murderers. It's a completely fabricated controversy that sold well to sentimental rubes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
gregday posted:Traditionally, Christianity has had no problem with abortion and it wasn't even seen as controversial or even worth discussing much because obviously it comes down to a woman's choice. This isn't really the case. It was more a practical issue: until a very recent silver of history, natural miscarriages, stillbirths, or sickly births that died shortly after were common enough that you couldn't really tell if someone had done it purposefully or not.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
gregday posted:Traditionally, Christianity has had no problem with abortion and it wasn't even seen as controversial or even worth discussing much because obviously it comes down to a woman's choice. The entire debate was invented cynically as a way to drive a wedge between voters so conservatives could paint their opponents as baby murderers. It's a completely fabricated controversy that sold well to sentimental rubes. Yeah, ancient Judea had about six or seven different genders too. Ditto for many cultures down through the millennia not only acknowledging trans people existed but also in some cases even assigning significance to them in some way that explicitly wasn't hateful and was in fact respectful. So the idea of the gender binary being some sacrosanct thing (that was only popularized in the 1920's, I should add) is loving ridiculous. Hell, Christianity as an organized religion has such a messed up history of oppression and genocide not just because the collusion between feudal states and the Catholic church was basically run like a mafia but also because because some of the early church fathers were massive weirdos that were into some of the Greek stoicism and Greek cultural beliefs around that time period. Beliefs that I should add were completely independent of anything to do with Christianity and just happened to include a gently caress ton of misogyny, bigotry, supremacism, and other malignant baggage. Ultimately, we have to start finding ways to disband these hate groups and restrict their access to funding their campaigns against human rights. Otherwise even if/when the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs due to them pushing everyone else out in an ever increasing cycle of extremism these hateful bastards will end up up infesting one of the other parties that is formed after that due to the usual alignment shifts in politics. Archonex fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
i think there are material causes for it: the trafeoff for the lowered wages and increased service consumption you get from women entering the workplace en masse is the social backlash from patriarchal practices at giving more women their own source of income and support, making them able and aware of their ability to delay, avoid, and even leave marriages. so they demand some other kind of compensating control. e: to say nothing of important progress in medicine Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This isn't really the case. It was more a practical issue: until a very recent silver of history, natural miscarriages, stillbirths, or sickly births that died shortly after were common enough that you couldn't really tell if someone had done it purposefully or not. If we're talking about actual tradition instead of what Christians claim they wanted tradition to be, the fact remains that people have actively sought and performed abortions throughout history (including those very same Christians).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This isn't really the case. It was more a practical issue: until a very recent silver of history, natural miscarriages, stillbirths, or sickly births that died shortly after were common enough that you couldn't really tell if someone had done it purposefully or not. As a rule however, this is not really relevant to evangelicalism though. The pivot to abortion was mostly for the enrichment of a few people at the top and the Republican party rather than a result of increased access to medicine leading to hatred and fear of the other. Along with the propagation of hatred and opportunity to get people murdered by institutional proxy for a few dedicated ideologues at that level of course. Keep in mind that these are the folks who were outright happy with the AID's epidemic and even went to major Republican and conservative conferences around it's height to give speeches that implicitly (or in some cases even explicitly) praised the poor treatment/effective mass murder of people who were LBGT via the AID's epidemic. And in one case literally called (on recording no less, that can be seen on youtube to this very day) AID's things like "God's cure for America." around the same time the pivot to abortion became a thing. They said things like this since it literally wiped out entire communities of LGBT people due to a mixture of deliberate Republican malfeasance along with targeted demonization followed by ostracization from Republican aligned hate groups meant to ramp up the kill count coupled with a lack of a cure or treatment. Edit: Keep in mind that this isn't a new problem with radical extremist elements of Christianity/evangelicalism. It's been an issue with the religious right and political right wing since the days before WW2, where we had our own literal fascist movement at the time using religion for it's own ends similar to ways Republicans and evangelical groups are doing now. Archonex fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:If you read the draft opinion this is actually the only way he distinguished his ruling from all the other cases you can apply the exact same logic to (Loving, etc.) Yeah, and also certainly no way that accepting "preserving fetal life", that abortion is a "particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedure", and that it somehow protects "maternal health and safety" (abortions are ~20x safer than childbirth) as "legitimate" state interests will be used as precedent for upholding a nationwide ban. Stickman fucked around with this message at 22:20 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Even if the Republican party becomes a permanent minority party (which it's slowly lurching towards in the vein of the Whigs, hence their increasing autocratic and anti-democratic leanings) Buddy, the GOP isn't worried about being a minority party in the coming decades because they only need single party control after the 2024 elections to make all those demographics irrelevant. Those demographic shifts also still fail to account for the large swaths of shitlibs that will still exist and vote for other shitlibs and side with 'reasonable' Republicans over progressives because the latter want to make them slightly less rich and powerful. There's not going to be some sudden change where we have actual progressives in charge of things. Anyone who thinks that playing the waiting game is going to work is out of their drat minds.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Buddy, the GOP isn't worried about being a minority party in the coming decades because they only need single party control after the 2024 elections to make all those demographics irrelevant. Those demographic shifts also still fail to account for the large swaths of shitlibs that will still exist and vote for other shitlibs and side with 'reasonable' Republicans over progressives because the latter want to make them slightly less rich and powerful. There's not going to be some sudden change where we have actual progressives in charge of things. Please quote to me the part where I said we should play a waiting game with the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Please quote to me the part where I said we should play a waiting game with the Republicans. Playing the waiting game with Republicans (for them to die not for them to come to their senses or something) is pretty funny since they all have way better healthcare than all of us put together-- paid for by our taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Playing the waiting game with Republicans (for them to die not for them to come to their senses or something) is pretty funny since they all have way better healthcare than all of us put together-- paid for by our taxes. Again, quote to me where I said that we should play the waiting game with the Republicans. You're just putting words in my mouth to try and manufacture an argument otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
gregday posted:Traditionally, Christianity has had no problem with abortion and it wasn't even seen as controversial or even worth discussing much because obviously it comes down to a woman's choice. The entire debate was invented cynically as a way to drive a wedge between voters so conservatives could paint their opponents as baby murderers. It's a completely fabricated controversy that sold well to sentimental rubes. This is not true in the least. As with anything related to a nearly 2000 year old religion, people have had varied takes on it over the years.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The other thing is that it's realpolitik to go after removing rights for non-white non-straight non-male people from the perspective of appealing to the Republican base's interests. The evangelical movement's current and past primary "thought" leaders pivoted to abortion after miscegenation proved to be unappealing (and it took them until after the majority of the rest of the country accepted that segregation of all sorts was wrong when it came to African Americans) as a way to rile the base up, get ridiculous sums of money for laundering hate speech into "religious" (and I use that word loosely as their beliefs have neither standing in ancient abrahamic religion's history, modern history, or any sort of history really) speech, and get people out to the polls in accordance with their alliance with the Republican's desires. I mostly just lurk in this thread, but I legitimately wanted to say "thank you" because I learned a new word today: miscegenation
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:This is not true in the least. As with anything related to a nearly 2000 year old religion, people have had varied takes on it over the years.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There isn't a pro-choice majority in either chamber of Congress Wrong. Narrowly so, but wrong. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021295
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
The biblical punishment for murder was death but for destroying a fetus it was only a fine, so the bible implicitly does not support fetal personhoodExodus 21:22 posted:If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according to what the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The biblical punishment for murder was death but for destroying a fetus it was only a fine, so the bible implicitly does not support fetal personhood Yeah, I grew up in evangelical/conservative Lutheranism in the 1980s and 1990s, and even then it was difficult for the clergy to reconcile the fetal personhood views against the fact that the Old Testament essentially treated a fetus like property and the New Testament did not really provide any counter arguments to that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The biblical punishment for murder was death but for destroying a fetus it was only a fine, so the bible implicitly does not support fetal personhood No, that passage only says that you pay a fine if you cause a pre-mature birth, but that the perpetrator should be put to death if death occurs from injuring the mother. It also ignores Luke 1:39-45 "39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”" And are you seriously saying that anything in the Old Testament is debatable? I mean, arguing over the meaning of scripture is something the Jewish people are known for.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Feels appropriate we’re citing bible passages in the scotus thread.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
I mean, if you're talking about Christianity, the Didache, which is probably late first century or early second century, contains the following list of sins:quote:And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I mean, if you're talking about Christianity, the Didache, which is probably late first century or early second century, contains the following list of sins: Or it says something vaguely like that because it certainly wasnt written in english
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Or it says something vaguely like that because it certainly wasnt written in english No, it wasn't. The phrase is ου φονευσεις τεκνον εν φθορα...."not you will murder child in corruption". So, "You will not murder a child in corruption", literally. "Child in corruption" means "Child unformed." ie "child in the womb", and you see this phrase in other Greek texts. Soranus of Ephesus, the Greek gynecologist, uses the term to refer to a fetus, as does Galen. And this text is pretty constantly translated as "You will not abort". The text sets up the parallel too. So it's "Do not kill a child in the womb, or a child newly born."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Right, but is it like the Islamic jurisprudence that says essentially "yeah you shouldn't do it, but also you shouldn't be punished for doing it?" or is it actually something that the writer of that text believes should be punished? I can see why someone would hold the personal opinion that abortion is a "sin" in a very vague sense and should be avoided. I don't have any particular issue with that point of view, as I believe that's what being "pro-choice" entails. I don't think it's correct but I bear no particular ill will toward someone who views their personal decision to have or not have an abortion in that way. I do very much have a gigantic loving issue with a bunch of bastard Christian fundie fucks trying to force their particular interpretation of an issue they see as grounded primarily in morality rather than in healthcare, privacy and personal autonomy, on everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
Guys, even the religion thread has a no abortion rule, can we not do the religion abortion bit here?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Guys, even the religion thread has a no abortion rule, can we not do the religion abortion bit here? We're having Christian Dominionist abortion rules shoved down our throats, it's unfortunately quite relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Right, but is it like the Islamic jurisprudence that says essentially "yeah you shouldn't do it, but also you shouldn't be punished for doing it?" or is it actually something that the writer of that text believes should be punished? The writer of the Didache lived in a world where Christianity was a religious minority that, if it was lucky, was ignored by the powers that be, and if not, suffered state persecution. He was concerned with what behavior would get you into heaven or to hell, and as far as he saw it, the only way that any of the behavior forbidden in the text would be punished in this world was after Jesus returned to earth in glory and overthrew the evil Roman Empire to rule over the people of this world, if it all. So I don't think "This should be legal or illegal" really was something the writer of the Didache thought about. It was more "This is what a Christian should do and shouldn't do."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
I mean, I'd love to do a "Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian walk into the Supreme Court" joke but I can't because it's been stacked with a bunch of weirdo loving Catholic pieces of poo poo who feel entitled to force their personal morality on an entire country, there's no demographic balance. EDIT: To be a little less hostile: they're entitled to their beliefs if and when they stop using their beliefs as justification to perpetrate vile injustices. Until then, I'll criticize them and their religion as I please. PT6A fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Devor posted:We're having Christian Dominionist abortion rules shoved down our throats, it's unfortunately quite relevant. The minutia of “these Christians X, those Christians Y” is absolutely not relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The minutia of “these Christians X, those Christians Y” is absolutely not relevant. It is when as a larger group they've done more damage to this country than any one group of people. (I'm talking post us murdering everyone taking over the country from the indigenous people of course) Yes, it's a small group, but the rest haven't stopped and condoned them nearly enough. Too many christians on here in the religious thread and in general treat the loving psychos like they're the embarrassing relative, when they aren't treated the way they should be, clear and present dangers to everyone else. None of them should be able to be on a school board, much less in government. They're all freaks and losers. I'm obviously not talking about the methodists here. The bad news about born again Christians is they are ruining everything for everyone else. The good news is they are incredibly stupid and easy to manipulate to get what you want out of them. I know the left's problem isn't building a big enough tent for all points of views, but basically i'm at this point. If you're not for: universal health care UBI (not means tested) getting rid of medical and student debt regulating corporations and billionaires to at least 1950's levels removing the dozen people we know to be legit traitors in the government (supreme court justices, the senators that committed treason on 1/6) legalizing weed in all states radically defunding police/training the other programs to be first responders, cutting the military budget trade school/state school/free cheap whatever decriminalizing sex work- good maternity leave expanding the supreme court and working on climate change (lol it won't do any good but at least we could get some cool trains in there as everything falls apart) banning firms from buying houses/rent control/building affordable housing Then you're not really coming to play seriously and if you're actively opposed to any of these things you're not one of the good people. LionArcher fucked around with this message at 04:37 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Guys, even the religion thread has a no abortion rule, can we not do the religion abortion bit here? Sorry it would be morally wrong to terminate a discussion that's this far along
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:29
|
|