Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AlabamAlum
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

    What was the explicit constitutional basis behind Loving that Obergfell lacks? If it's possible to summarize without wasting much time
    Yes, Loving you is easy because you’re beautiful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by iam416 View Post
    Loving has a constitutional basis. Like explicit constitutional basis. Obergfell is considerably more tenuous, BUT, the way Gorsuch now reads "sex discrimination" it's actually not.

    So, I mean, the slippery slope parade of horribles is pretty much nonsense, IMO.
    What was the explicit constitutional basis behind Loving that Obergfell lacks? If it's possible to summarize without wasting much time

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom W
    replied
    Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post

    Don't you see that there are extremists on both sides of the issue? Alito says, "Let the people decide."
    There are- and I honestly don't think that the extremists on either side have any interest in any sort of compromise. Nothing short of total victory will make them happy and they certainly don't give a damn about what the rest of us think as each and every little twitch on the issue sparks outrage from one side or the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • iam416
    replied
    Loving has a constitutional basis. Like explicit constitutional basis. Obergfell is considerably more tenuous, BUT, the way Gorsuch now reads "sex discrimination" it's actually not.

    So, I mean, the slippery slope parade of horribles is pretty much nonsense, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by lineygoblue View Post
    Progs in New York, Illinois and California want to be able to tell people in Mississippi, Oklahoma and North Dakota how to live their lives, and not only that, they want it to be come "decided law".
    I honestly don't have a huge problem with different states having different abortion laws. My problem is that some other issues that I think should NOT be left to every state and instead have a national standard (like gay marriage and interracial marriage) rest upon similar legal foundations as the Roe decision. So if Roe is fatally undermined, so will a bunch of other decisions made under the Warren/Burger courts. And despite what Alito claims in his draft opinion, that this decision impacts abortion rights and nothing else, I don't remotely believe him. I believe a lot of other decisions that conservatives have hated for generations will come under attack and reversal.

    Leave a comment:


  • lineygoblue
    replied
    Progs in New York, Illinois and California want to be able to tell people in Mississippi, Oklahoma and North Dakota how to live their lives, and not only that, they want it to be come "decided law".

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by iam416 View Post
    I agree with Hannibal as to where it will settle. Furthermore, most states have a relatively permissive Constitutional amendment process. Ohio does for sure. I 100% guarantee that Ohio will vote on a State Constitutional amendment enshrining, at a minimum, first trimester rights (advocates shouldn't overplay their hand) and it will be a pass/fail popular vote. Pure democracy. And if, as the pro-aboriton side maintains, if this is such a popular option it ought to get 50.1%, even in a solidly red, but not deeply crimson state.

    I expect you'll see a lot of this and the laws will generally settle to where in the significant majority of the country -- and ginormous majority by population -- access to aboriton is available for, at a minimum, the first 12 weeks.
    The problem I see is that I believe most of the state laws will be written by the extremists on either end. Let's face it: you, me, Hanni, AA, and probably a few others here aren't changing the way we vote based just on this issue. The middle 60-75% on this issue can be safely ignored by most politicians but the extremists of both stripes cannot.

    Ohio genuinely may be a state where a very moderate ground is staked but by and large, I'm not going to be shocked if most of the state laws end up being way out on one end or the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Da Geezer
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

    A lot of the Dem proposals & laws being thrown out there is being done by extremists that lack majority support. Outlawing all abortions with no exceptions for even rape, incest, or underage girls ALSO is an extremist position. Consider the polls all lies, virtue signaling, whatever.
    Don't you see that there are extremists on both sides of the issue? Alito says, "Let the people decide."

    Don't you find it ironic that your side, the side that calls killing babies an "established constitutional right" has no confidence in the voters to uphold that "right" in elections. You are all about saying that 2/3 of people favor abortion, and some polls show that. So let's vote. Easy win for you. Why the outrage?

    The truth is that there never was a constitutional right to kill a baby. The fact that we had an activist court until 2 years ago doesn't change the fact that such a right never existed. Leonard Tribe and RBG both said that Roe was wrongly decided, casting a broad net and changing the laws in EVERY state. Why is it that Progs simply MUST rule everyone and conservatives just want to be left alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post

    Good lord. The incorrigible DSL quoting Exodus. Amazing.

    The entirety of the Torah and the Tanakh witness that human life exists in the womb and prior to birth. To find "some" rabbis who warp the full teachings of the Hebrew Tanakh to fit their virtue-signaling political beliefs is no more convincing than quoting Joel Osteen about foreign policy. In Judaism and in Christianity, scripture informs opinion and not the other way around.
    You know what? I don't doubt you've spent a good amount of time wagging your self-righteous finger in the face of the 3 or 4 Jews you've met over your 92 years, lecturing them on what it means to be a 'good Jew' and the 'one and only' correct way to interpret the Torah.

    Leave a comment:


  • iam416
    replied
    I agree with Hannibal as to where it will settle. Furthermore, most states have a relatively permissive Constitutional amendment process. Ohio does for sure. I 100% guarantee that Ohio will vote on a State Constitutional amendment enshrining, at a minimum, first trimester rights (advocates shouldn't overplay their hand) and it will be a pass/fail popular vote. Pure democracy. And if, as the pro-aboriton side maintains, if this is such a popular option it ought to get 50.1%, even in a solidly red, but not deeply crimson state.

    I expect you'll see a lot of this and the laws will generally settle to where in the significant majority of the country -- and ginormous majority by population -- access to aboriton is available for, at a minium, the first 12 weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Da Geezer
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Did you know certain factions of Judaism (not Orthodox) allow for abortion because the fetus is not considered a human being until birth?

    Exodus 21:22 is translated and interpreted different ways but some rabbis consider it proof that a fetus is not the same as a human being. The verse is tranlated differently obviously but at least in many the verse describes the punishment for a man who intentionally causes a woman to miscarry. The punishment is a fine and not death, the normal punishment for murder.
    Good lord. The incorrigible DSL quoting Exodus. Amazing.

    The entirety of the Torah and the Tanakh witness that human life exists in the womb and prior to birth. To find "some" rabbis who warp the full teachings of the Hebrew Tanakh to fit their virtue-signaling political beliefs is no more convincing than quoting Joel Osteen about foreign policy. In Judaism and in Christianity, scripture informs opinion and not the other way around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
    If I had to guess, I would say that a dozen or so states will keep abortion 100% legal on demand through the third trimester. Maybe ten states will outlaw it entirely, but it could be more than that if the Rs in states like Michigan and Wisconsin overplay their hands, in which case they will probably be voted out of office. An outright ban an abortion is not a winning position for most of the country. The centrist position is first trimester + rape/incest and that's the position that I expect to prevail in most of the country.
    I'd have to research the details of every individual law but I know a dozen states have trigger laws that will ban abortion to a pretty restricted degree the moment Roe is overturned.

    Oklahoma in the past couple months passed two different versions.

    One, in the event Roe is overturned completely, would ban all abortion, the only exception being when the mother's health is in true danger. And I'm guessing they will be watching doctors like hawks to make sure they don't "abuse" that discretion.

    The second version is pretty identical to the Texas law. If Roe isn't tossed completely this one will take effect. All abortion banned after six weeks, no exceptions but health. Citizens are incentivized to sue doctors and collect cash rewards for turning in anyone you suspect of violating the law. And if it truly is like the Texas law, there's absolutely no downside to falsely accusing someone because the state picks up the tab.

    Leave a comment:


  • lineygoblue
    replied
    Did you know certain factions of Judaism (not Orthodox) allow for abortion because the fetus is not considered a human being until birth?
    I'm not real keen on the different factions of Judaism, but I'm assuming their factions have the same divisions as Protestant Christianity. Islam, and even Catholicism. For instance, the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church are very liberal, (pro gay marriage, pro abortion) but claim to be Christians. You won't find them fellowshipping with Southern Baptists or Free Methodists, but they all are lumped under that same umbrella. The United Methodists are about to split over the gay marriage thing.

    I can't bring myself to the point to where I would agree with a baby being terminated because its inconvenient. Especially when there is brain activity, a heartbeat, and movement. I cannot get there, and no amount of Liz Warren's tears will get me there. Of course I'm a "WHITE MALE", so I am not allowed to have an opinion.



    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
    .

    DSL, you should talk to some Right to Life people. The last thing the pro-life side wants is a national law on abortion, pro or con. That is what this leaked opinion says at its root. The decisions that the states make will be litigated in the free market of ideas and will involve voters ultimately having their way. In the big D states, abortion on demand will prevail. In some southern states, there might be a total ban on abortion. If the pro-abortion crowd is so sure that Americans favor abortion, why not let the majority prevail? The fact is that "favoring" abortion is just another form of virtue signaling because only rednecks oppose abortion.

    And you mention Missouri. I'll mention proposals in Maryland and California that allow the mother to "withhold" care in the first 28 days after birth. The former governor of Virginia made it clear that he felt a mother should be able to have her already-born baby tested to see if she wanted to keep him, and should be able to throw away the child if the child is "flawed". Dems REQUIRE that all party candidates support abortion. It is far more likely that the pro-abortion people allow for infanticide than that there is some law that prohibits citizens from going to states where abortion is legal in order to get an abortion. The Commerce Clause takes care of that.
    A lot of the Dem proposals & laws being thrown out there is being done by extremists that lack majority support. Outlawing all abortions with no exceptions for even rape, incest, or underage girls ALSO is an extremist position. Consider the polls all lies, virtue signaling, whatever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hannibal
    replied
    If I had to guess, I would say that a dozen or so states will keep abortion 100% legal on demand through the third trimester. Maybe ten states will outlaw it entirely, but it could be more than that if the Rs in states like Michigan and Wisconsin overplay their hands, in which case they will probably be voted out of office. An outright ban an abortion is not a winning position for most of the country. The centrist position is first trimester + rape/incest and that's the position that I expect to prevail in most of the country.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X