|
Kalman posted:The concept of judicial review is inherent to the Supremacy Clause and the grant of power to the judiciary to address cases arising under the Constitution, but go ahead.
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
For ruining the lives of millions of people and claiming it is good for us. These Justices sure are happy to be miserable pieces of poo poo with each other. https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1525471264504152064?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:For ruining the lives of millions of people and claiming it is good for us. These Justices sure are happy to be miserable pieces of poo poo with each other. Can you imagine having Thomas as a coworker for the rest of your life? A pontificating crank unswervingly convinced of his own rightness, and his wife is somehow worse. At least Kavanaugh has the courtesy to be passed out drunk in the corner.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Can you imagine having Thomas as a coworker for the rest of your life? A pontificating crank unswervingly convinced of his own rightness, and his wife is somehow worse. anybody forced to listen to Scalia and Thomas together for any period of time who hasn't offed themselves possesses an incredible level of fortitude
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I suspect they were referring to the fact that while the legislative branch creates laws, the judicial branch is what determines the legality of those laws. “Constitutionality” and “legality” are very different concepts, though.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:For ruining the lives of millions of people and claiming it is good for us. These Justices sure are happy to be miserable pieces of poo poo with each other. Yeah, the "leftist" position, the one with uhhhh >70% domestic approval
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Wow, there's really someone in here arguing that slaves only had the right to not be slaves once enough of their oppressors came to a consensus that they had that right. Wild stuff. And yes, conservatives should be doing a lot more to avoid conception, as that would bolster their case.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That isn't the argument, and you know it isn't. The other side, and I'm putting myself on your side because again I'm pro choice, think that the baby has a right to not be loving murdered. The debate is over which right is stronger, mother's or baby's. What baby? E: and why would it have a right not to be murdered?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That isn't the argument, and you know it isn't. The other side, and I'm putting myself on your side because again I'm pro choice, think that the baby has a right to not be loving murdered. The debate is over which right is stronger, mother's or baby's. If they think that then they don't understand what a baby is. Or what murder is. Or what has rights.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Yeah, the "leftist" position, the one with uhhhh >70% domestic approval Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That isn't the argument, and you know it isn't. The other side, and I'm putting myself on your side because again I'm pro choice, think that the baby has a right to not be loving murdered. The debate is over which right is stronger, mother's or baby's. I don't think their behavior or beliefs have anything to do with this, even though it's the way most of them have tried to make sense of their feelings. If they cared about what happened to babies, they would behave very differently, so I don't think their stated reasons match up with their actual reasons, which doesn't necessarily mean they're intentionally lying.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
You're a loving judge, you're supposed to be able to articulate reasoning for your decisions that is completely devoid of any partisan left/right rhetoric. The mask couldn't be more off.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:For ruining the lives of millions of people and claiming it is good for us. These Justices sure are happy to be miserable pieces of poo poo with each other. quote:“Look where we are, where that trust or that belief is gone forever,” he said. “And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder.” i mean, you're right, just not for the reasons you think quote:Justice Thomas joked that his former clerk [John Yoo] would face a confirmation battle were he nominated to the federal bench. yeah i should fuckin hope. quote:Justice Thomas said the left had adopted tactics that conservatives would not employ. conservatives are happy to murder people irrelevant to the DC elite in charlottesville or w/e, or unsuccessfully try to murder congresspeople Thomas disagrees with on Jan 6th. these are permissible. please leave my wife out of this she is a private citizen and has no sway on my jurisprudence quote:He added that conservatives had “never trashed a Supreme Court nominee.” He acknowledged that Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s third Supreme Court nominee, “did not get a hearing, but he was not trashed.” "i am still mad about getting called out for sexual assault. VERY MAD! IT WAS _VERY_ U N D E C O R O U S"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:What baby? You don' t think people have a right to their lives? The question is when a person becomes a person, and that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:You don' t think people have a right to their lives? Not really. As others have pointed out, I can withhold a life-saving organ from someone after I'm dead and not using them, and instead have the useful bits of my corpse either buried or burned or otherwise disposed of. Why would a woman be required to gestate a fetus if they don't consent to it?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not really. As others have pointed out, I can withhold a life-saving organ from someone after I'm dead and not using them, and instead have the useful bits of my corpse either buried or burned or otherwise disposed of. Why would a woman be required to gestate a fetus if they don't consent to it? Why should a non-custodial parent be required to pay child support then? And I don't think it should be legal for people to opt out of being an organ donor. I mean, if the woman didn't consent to having sex, then ok, we can carve out an exception for that, but children are a possible consequence of having sex. By consenting to have sex you are consenting to being responsible for the possible consequences of those actions. Unless you're saying that no one has a valid claim on the resources of anyone else, which is a position, but not one I'd take. PeterCat fucked around with this message at 02:06 on May 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not really. As others have pointed out, I can withhold a life-saving organ from someone after I'm dead and not using them, and instead have the useful bits of my corpse either buried or burned or otherwise disposed of. Why would a woman be required to gestate a fetus if they don't consent to it? The philosophical difference is that some people hold the belief that a fetus isn't merely an organ-like part of a woman's body, but an entirely different human being who just happens to temporarily share the body with the woman. If you hold the view that the fetus also has a right to bodily autonomy, then forcefully separating it from the woman can be seen as unethical.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Why should a non-custodial parent be required to pay child support then? They shouldn't be, it's a poverty trap for men and an abuse magnet for women. Children should be supported by the government (which would also reduce abortions).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:The philosophical difference is that some people hold the belief that a fetus isn't merely an organ-like part of a woman's body, but an entirely different human being who just happens to temporarily share the body with the woman. If you hold the view that the fetus also has a right to bodily autonomy, then forcefully separating it from the woman can be seen as unethical. The point about organ donors does not posit that the fetus is an organ. Even if you believe fully that absolute humanity is present from conception, you are making an exceptional claim if you believe fetuses are the only humans whose right to life supercedes another human's right to not choose not to give up their organs to sustain them. No other human in America can compel another human to do this, no matter how minor the request (for example, no one can be compelled to donate blood for medical use, even though blood donation is mostly painless, mostly risk free, takes barely any time, and can undeniably save lives). Why should this exception be made in the case of fetuses?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
Oh no, not the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, oh no
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Why should this exception be made in the case of fetuses? Because without any scientific basis whatsoever, the anti-choice crowd has decided that an undifferentiated clump of cells incapable of living outside the womb constitutes 'a baby.' And they will never believe otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
HazCat posted:The point about organ donors does not posit that the fetus is an organ. If you adhere to the belief that a fetus is a person, then both the fetus and the woman can have rights at the same time and these rights can be in conflict with each other. If abortion is the woman's choice, then her rights supercede the fetus's. If abortion is not allowed, then the fetus's rights supercede the woman's. This is again stepping into philosophical discussion. Is the woman merely lending her womb to the fetus, voluntarily or involuntarily, or are the woman and the fetus sharing the womb like conjoined twins share organs?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Because without any scientific basis whatsoever, the anti-choice crowd has decided that an undifferentiated clump of cells incapable of living outside the womb constitutes 'a baby.' The point is that even babies (post birth) don't get this exception. No adult person can be legally compelled to donate blood or organs to keep a baby from dying. Even if someone genuinely believes life begins at conception, outlawing abortion is not justifiable unless accompanied by the belief that pregnant humans do not have the same legal right to bodily integrity as every other adult human.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:s the woman merely lending her womb to the fetus, voluntarily or involuntarily, or are the woman and the fetus sharing the womb like conjoined twins share organs? Anyone who thinks of pregnancy as 'lending a womb' does not understand the basic physiological reality of pregnancy and should not be involved in this discussion. The fetus removes calcium from the bones, interferes with the immune system, can cause diabetes and digestive changes, and if allowed to grow to term can cause permanent alterations to bone structure and organ placement. This is in normal healthy pregnancies, not extreme outlying cases. You do not get your pre-pregnancy body back after birth. Regardless, I cannot be compelled to donate blood to you, even if it will be returned to me later, as a literal 'loan'. No one in any circumstances has the right to demand body or organs or blood from any human, even temporarily. If fetuses should be an exception, there needs to be justification for it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
HazCat posted:outlawing abortion is not justifiable unless accompanied by the belief that pregnant humans do not have the same legal right to bodily integrity as every other adult human. I have bad news about our Christian white nationalist voter demographic
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:i mean, you're right, just not for the reasons you think How many of the sitting justices were at the 2000 stop the count poo poo in FL
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I have bad news about our Christian white nationalist voter demographic Oh, I'm aware. But people in this thread seem unaware of the absolute basics of what pro-choice means and why anti-abortion is not about whether life begins at conception or not, and I'm talking to them. Even if life begins at conception, women should not be compelled to carry to term. If conservatives don't want unwanted children to die, they should compel the government to invest in artificial womb technology and fetus transplant technology. Show me a woman who insists her fetus be killed instead of removed from her and kept alive, and I will agree that is a case of murder.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
The issue is that a significant number of our voters don't see The Other as valid citizens, and they've Othered "irresponsible women" as a vindictive outlet for their desire for religious validation. I keep saying this: the issue has nothing to do with legalities. It's white nationalists asserting loudly to each other that they don't have to pay attention to legalism at all. Further, our capital class is comforted by the idea that "law is ignorable if you convince people to ignore it," and has generally thrown their weight behind this and other anti-legalism movements.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Oh, I'm aware. But people in this thread seem unaware of the absolute basics of what pro-choice means and why anti-abortion is not about whether life begins at conception or not, and I'm talking to them. If such technology existed extraction would almost certainly be far more dangerous and invasive than abortion, so it would still be unethical to require. (Plus now we're heading back into "spill your seed" territory)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Show me a woman who insists her fetus be killed instead of removed from her and kept alive, and I will agree that is a case of murder. What is the process of having a fetus removed in such a scenario and how invasive is it? So now it's murder if a woman isn't willing to get surgery to remove her fetus rather than take abortion medication? What if a woman takes plan b the morning after having unprotected sex without knowing she had a fertalized egg: is that murder in such a scenario?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If such technology existed extraction would almost certainly be far more dangerous and invasive than abortion, so it would still be unethical to require. Sounds like something to argue when the hypothetical technology exists. I was envisioning a point where removal is as easy as abortion, and the only distinction if if the fetus lives or dies. The point is that the goal of abortion is not killing the fetus, but separating it from the parent's system. And the right to that separation is in line with the right to bodily integrity enjoyed by all other adults.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Show me a woman who insists her fetus be killed instead of removed from her and kept alive, and I will agree that is a case of murder. Why would someone's words have any bearing whatsoever on the non-personhood of an inanimate object?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Castle Doctrine: if someone trespasses in your home you have the right to use lethal force against them. This is even true if you invited them in and they refuse to leave later, so it doesn't actually matter if having sex is consent to let a zygote onto her property
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Castle Doctrine: if someone trespasses in your home you have the right to use lethal force against them. Yes but have you considered that I'm a Free Fetus on the Womb and your laws don't apply to me?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
I do not have an assigned BERTH/BIRTH and under admiralty law have a right to gestate in your fallopian tube.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That isn't the argument, and you know it isn't. The other side, and I'm putting myself on your side because again I'm pro choice, think that the baby has a right to not be loving murdered. The debate is over which right is stronger, mother's or baby's. There is no debate. Just like there's no debate about forcing a father to give his son a kidney to save their life. A person cannot be forced to sacrifice their body for another. And, yes, that's exactly what the "consensus" argument being made says. PeterCat posted:You don' t think people have a right to their lives? The question is irrelevant, actually. No person has the right to the life of another person. Devorum fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:You don' t think people have a right to their lives? I think the whole concept of a right beyond some type of societal consensus is strange. I think killing someone would be abhorrent. There should be laws against and punishments for doing so in most circumstances. The philosophical question doesn't really matter to me, since even if i accepted a potential human was an actual human I still can't force someone to act as a heart and lung bypass for someone else. E: ahh, yes, what everyone already said, and better
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:laws are enacted by the legislative branch. if you're unfamiliar with even the basics of US government structure i'm not sure what you think you have to add to the discussion besides questions. Maybe you should have the first idea what powers the Constitution lays out for the executive before you try to talk down to someone with superior knowledge on the topic. Or, in your case, any knowledge, just to be safe. Doc Hawkins posted:the marbury court made up judicial review. Judicial review is a natural consequence of there being a court of last resort. The claim that this concept didn't exist before 1803 is not drawn from facts. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Why should a non-custodial parent be required to pay child support then? Child support is not the argument in your position's favor you think it is. Child support acknowledges that one partner has inflicted an undue burden on the other that they must be compensated for. It would be a massive uproar if we forced people to adopt, would it not? Another fun, if out there, track to take is the 3rd Amendment. The government cannot, in fact, force you to quarter someone in your home. What is your argument that they should be able to do so with your womb, which is much more evidently yours than your home? Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 09:39 on May 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Another fun, if out there, track to take is the 3rd Amendment. The government cannot, in fact, force you to quarter someone in your home. What is your argument that they should be able to do so with your womb, which is much more evidently yours than your home? The 3rd only applies to soldiers. To resolve this problem, we need fetal conscription.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2022 10:09
|
|
