Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Bentleyspop

Bumble And Match Leaders Set Up Funds For People Affected By The Texas Abortion Ban. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033980404/texas-abortion-ban-bumble-match-funds?ft=nprml&f=1003

cblock4life

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Thou shall not kill.  It's that simple to them.  And if life begins at conception, then it is killing.  There's no Christian argument that supports abortion. 

did jesus actually say that? i know it was in the old testament and one of the 10 commandments, but did jesus talk about it?

In the New Testament Jesus died for our sins and forgives us no matter what. The “eye for an eye” no longer existed (if you’re a good person) once Jesus arrived. 

I’m not sure some politicians know that the New Testament exists. 

gimmesometruth27

cblock4life said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Thou shall not kill.  It's that simple to them.  And if life begins at conception, then it is killing.  There's no Christian argument that supports abortion. 

did jesus actually say that? i know it was in the old testament and one of the 10 commandments, but did jesus talk about it?

In the New Testament Jesus died for our sins and forgives us no matter what. The “eye for an eye” no longer existed (if you’re a good person) once Jesus arrived. 

I’m not sure some politicians know that the New Testament exists. 

well, if an abortion is viewed as a sin, wouldn't jesus forgive that sin if you are honestly contrite about it?

that is funny. jesus will forgive you after you die, but men will not while you are alive.

i fucking hate religion.

mrussel1

gimmesometruth27 said:

cblock4life said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Thou shall not kill.  It's that simple to them.  And if life begins at conception, then it is killing.  There's no Christian argument that supports abortion. 

did jesus actually say that? i know it was in the old testament and one of the 10 commandments, but did jesus talk about it?

In the New Testament Jesus died for our sins and forgives us no matter what. The “eye for an eye” no longer existed (if you’re a good person) once Jesus arrived. 

I’m not sure some politicians know that the New Testament exists. 

well, if an abortion is viewed as a sin, wouldn't jesus forgive that sin if you are honestly contrite about it?

that is funny. jesus will forgive you after you die, but men will not while you are alive.

i fucking hate religion.

Yes,  one of the core tenants of Christianity is redemption.  And you're right,  that has been forgotten by American Christians.  Unfortunately it's not exactly practiced by the Twitter mob either. They are the new Puritans.

brianlux

From a FaceBook post by a close friend (who has two young children):

brianlux

From the song "Taliban USA" off the album Tea Party Revenge Porn by Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medicine:

Save the unborn, kill the young
Doctors hung!

It's a dirty secret in extremest land
Family Values mob hates kids
"Unborn child is sacred"
But once they're born, to hell with them.

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

From a FaceBook post by a close friend (who has two young children):

i'd buy that shirt. that's awesome. 

1ThoughtKnown

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

curmudgeoness

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

1ThoughtKnown

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

With all due respect, I was  asking how your judicial branch become so political in that I believe for a strong democracy that it shouldn’t in any way be political. Judges shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. I find it fundamentally wrong. 

mrussel1

1ThoughtKnown said:

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

With all due respect, I was  asking how your judicial branch become so political in that I believe for a strong democracy that it shouldn’t in any way be political. Judges shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. I find it fundamentally wrong. 

Everyone who is engaged politically is R or D. They are still citizens.  So I think that is an unrealistic expectation and inconsistent historically in this country. A judge,  particularity SCOTUS should interpret the law without prejudice,  but there are two major schools of thought; constructionists (aka originalists) and those that believe it is a living document.  They generally fall into right and left wing respectively.  

The shadow docket issue isn't really a right/ left issue,  it's a transparency one.  But i have to believe that this will likely make it to a full court hearing.  The ruling was simply that this did not directly violate Roe because the state is not enforcing the law.  It's a legal trick, but not one that I think threatens our democracy.  Additionally,  once there's an actual case that has standing,  the law could be enjoined very quickly and wind its way up to SCOTUS.

brianlux

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

Here, here!  Bootyjudge is cool.  I would vote for him, for sure.

mickeyrat

term limits....

9 member court. 18 year terms. one rotates off every two years. every president gets to nominate......

1ThoughtKnown

mrussel1 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

With all due respect, I was  asking how your judicial branch become so political in that I believe for a strong democracy that it shouldn’t in any way be political. Judges shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. I find it fundamentally wrong. 

Everyone who is engaged politically is R or D. They are still citizens.  So I think that is an unrealistic expectation and inconsistent historically in this country. A judge,  particularity SCOTUS should interpret the law without prejudice,  but there are two major schools of thought; constructionists (aka originalists) and those that believe it is a living document.  They generally fall into right and left wing respectively.  

The shadow docket issue isn't really a right/ left issue,  it's a transparency one.  But i have to believe that this will likely make it to a full court hearing.  The ruling was simply that this did not directly violate Roe because the state is not enforcing the law.  It's a legal trick, but not one that I think threatens our democracy.  Additionally,  once there's an actual case that has standing,  the law could be enjoined very quickly and wind its way up to SCOTUS.

I appreciate your well thought out post, however I still see this as a significant flaw in your system. The judicial branch is not a place to interpret the laws based on ideology. 
It is the judicial branches responsibility to evaluate laws. Once the judicial branch becomes political, you have no separation between the legislative and executive branches and the judicial branch. 

The judicial branch must interpret laws (specifically constitutional) objectively. These appointed judges are openly subjective. Your political views should not have any bearing on your JOB, which should be to interpret the laws of the land and make decisions objectively.  

cutz

https://twitter.com/DonLew87/status/1434134330637488129

mrussel1

1ThoughtKnown said:

mrussel1 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

With all due respect, I was  asking how your judicial branch become so political in that I believe for a strong democracy that it shouldn’t in any way be political. Judges shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. I find it fundamentally wrong. 

Everyone who is engaged politically is R or D. They are still citizens.  So I think that is an unrealistic expectation and inconsistent historically in this country. A judge,  particularity SCOTUS should interpret the law without prejudice,  but there are two major schools of thought; constructionists (aka originalists) and those that believe it is a living document.  They generally fall into right and left wing respectively.  

The shadow docket issue isn't really a right/ left issue,  it's a transparency one.  But i have to believe that this will likely make it to a full court hearing.  The ruling was simply that this did not directly violate Roe because the state is not enforcing the law.  It's a legal trick, but not one that I think threatens our democracy.  Additionally,  once there's an actual case that has standing,  the law could be enjoined very quickly and wind its way up to SCOTUS.

I appreciate your well thought out post, however I still see this as a significant flaw in your system. The judicial branch is not a place to interpret the laws based on ideology. 
It is the judicial branches responsibility to evaluate laws. Once the judicial branch becomes political, you have no separation between the legislative and executive branches and the judicial branch. 

The judicial branch must interpret laws (specifically constitutional) objectively. These appointed judges are openly subjective. Your political views should not have any bearing on your JOB, which should be to interpret the laws of the land and make decisions objectively.  

I think they see their views as a legal philosophy, not a political one.  For example, someone like Kavanaugh may think Roe should be overturned because the ruling that the constitution provides a right to privacy, therefore the state interfering with abortion violates that right, is flawed.  A constructionist rightfully finds no such language in the constitution.  And it does not exist.  Therefore he might vote against Roe not because he believes abortion should be illegal, rather that it CAN be illegal because it’s just another law.  And by the same token, a state can specifically legalize abortions for the same reason.  It just so happens that this legal philosophy benefits anti abortion activists, hence the current situation.

I also think it’s impossible for any judge who evaluates legislation, laws, statutes, etc. to be completely void of bias.  Your judges in Canada have inherent bias too.  Criminal cases are different.  The judge must show impartiality, but the issues that the SCOTUS deals with will introduce bias. 

curmudgeoness

Judges are recommended by politically-motivated groups (e.g. the Federalist Society). But judges who take their roles seriously, those who aren't political hacks, will, as @mrussel1 notes, be operating from a philosophical, not political, perspective. Last year, many people were surprised when Gorsuch sided with the more liberal justices in a 6-3 ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees; in fact, he wrote the opinion. From a conservative -- not Republican -- perspective, this was the correct ruling, regardless of how Gorsuch himself feels about LGBTQ individuals. (I have no idea what his personal feelings are.)

Just a few weeks ago, Justice Barrett denied Indiana University students' demand for review of the school's vaccine mandate. Again, if the judge is working from a philosophical, not political, perspective, this move is not surprising. This doesn't change how I feel about the justice's nomination and confirmation.

Our last president did not understand how legitimate judges operate (given the motley crew of "lawyers" who work for/with him, this isn't surprising). He thought they would feel beholden to him, and would act as his personal advocates or employees.

mrussel1

curmudgeoness said:

Judges are recommended by politically-motivated groups (e.g. the Federalist Society). But judges who take their roles seriously, those who aren't political hacks, will, as @mrussel1 notes, be operating from a philosophical, not political, perspective. Last year, many people were surprised when Gorsuch sided with the more liberal justices in a 6-3 ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees; in fact, he wrote the opinion. From a conservative -- not Republican -- perspective, this was the correct ruling, regardless of how Gorsuch himself feels about LGBTQ individuals. (I have no idea what his personal feelings are.)

Just a few weeks ago, Justice Barrett denied Indiana University students' demand for review of the school's vaccine mandate. Again, if the judge is working from a philosophical, not political, perspective, this move is not surprising. This doesn't change how I feel about the justice's nomination and confirmation.

Our last president did not understand how legitimate judges operate (given the motley crew of "lawyers" who work for/with him, this isn't surprising). He thought they would feel beholden to him, and would act as his personal advocates or employees.

Great examples.  

Lerxst1992

1ThoughtKnown said:

mrussel1 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

curmudgeoness said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

I live where the abortion issue doesn’t exist, where the religious right has no political power. However I was listening to NPR yesterday and this “decision” by the Supreme Court is most concerning. 

This shadow docket scam the Republicans keep pulling is slowly eroding the strength of your democracy.  There is just no transparency in this legal procedure. How is that democratic? This is some clock and dagger shit the Republicans are pulling here. 

How did the US judicial branch become so political? This branch should not be “left” or “right”.  I don’t want to sound overly-dramatic but in all truth I would be very frightened if I was American. This precedence can have greater implications, not just on the issue of abortion. 

How crazy is this “decision”? The legal expert on NPR stated it is conceivable that if you were talking to a someone about abortion and they went through with it that any citizen of Texas could sue you. What Texas is trying to do is that outlandish. The slow eroding of your democracy began with Reagan and in the greatest snow job in history, have somehow changed the definition of freedom in the US to a conservative rallying cry. Remember when freedom was punk rock and getting out from under oppressive government?  

I heard the Texas move described as "facially unconstitutional, so there's that.

How did the judicial branch become so political? Do you know who Mitch McConnell is? (Not being snarky -- you're Canadian, I don't assume that you do/don't know.) SC Justice Scalia died in early 2016, 8-9 months before our presidential election. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him - fairly centrist, highly regarded judge who's now our Attorney General. He should have been an easy confirmation, but Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying that it was inappropriate to seat a new justice in an election year. So our SC sat at eight justices until after the 2016 election, whereupon McConnell pushed through the Gorsuch nomination -- and later Kavanaugh.

Fast-forward to last October, when Justice Ginsburg died. Voting in the 2020 election had already commenced, yet McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Justice Barrett (sp?) in no time at all, because reasons. Joe Biden went on to be elected just a few weeks later, with some seven million more votes than the former guy.

One of McConnell's main objectives has been to fill the judicial branch with as many conservative judges as possible (not just the SC, but appellate and federal district courts as well). Our former president was an unmitigated disaster on many fronts, but a signal success, a hallmark, of his term was the amazing number of federal judges who were seated. The Federalist Society is a conservative legal society that curates a list of judges with solid conservative credentials and presents them to McConnell and the (former/ GOP) president as a resource for naming new judges.

Note that under past presidents, there would be a lot of outcry over "activist judges," which appears to mean "liberal."

Also note that, to be fair, a number of those judges appointed by the last president threw out the DOZENS of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud -- so they're not all partisan hacks, and I do believe that most take their roles seriously (regardless of whether or not I agree with their rulings).

It comes down to math: we have three branches of government; if one party can maintain firm control over two branches (ooh, gerrymandering!), it can much more easily kneecap the other branch when it wants to do so.

So now we have a debate over whether or not Biden should pack the court in light of what happened this week. Our Constitution does NOT specify the number of SC justices, so this would be totally legal to do -- if short-sighted.

I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg -- now transportation secretary, formerly presidential candidate. He proposed a 15-justice SC, five appointed by the GOP, five appointed by Dems, and five appointed by the other ten justices. I think this idea has a lot of merit, and I think it COULD help de-politicize things.  

With all due respect, I was  asking how your judicial branch become so political in that I believe for a strong democracy that it shouldn’t in any way be political. Judges shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. I find it fundamentally wrong. 

Everyone who is engaged politically is R or D. They are still citizens.  So I think that is an unrealistic expectation and inconsistent historically in this country. A judge,  particularity SCOTUS should interpret the law without prejudice,  but there are two major schools of thought; constructionists (aka originalists) and those that believe it is a living document.  They generally fall into right and left wing respectively.  

The shadow docket issue isn't really a right/ left issue,  it's a transparency one.  But i have to believe that this will likely make it to a full court hearing.  The ruling was simply that this did not directly violate Roe because the state is not enforcing the law.  It's a legal trick, but not one that I think threatens our democracy.  Additionally,  once there's an actual case that has standing,  the law could be enjoined very quickly and wind its way up to SCOTUS.

I appreciate your well thought out post, however I still see this as a significant flaw in your system. The judicial branch is not a place to interpret the laws based on ideology. 
It is the judicial branches responsibility to evaluate laws. Once the judicial branch becomes political, you have no separation between the legislative and executive branches and the judicial branch. 

The judicial branch must interpret laws (specifically constitutional) objectively. These appointed judges are openly subjective. Your political views should not have any bearing on your JOB, which should be to interpret the laws of the land and make decisions objectively.  

The fragility of our democracy is an excellent point, but it has more to do with how one man tore thru many accepted norms that served as guardrails for our democracy and perhaps  broke this country for his own personal gain. Many argue that SCOTUS is in fact less political now than it was during its earlier decades (see wapo article for support).

When one man says “either I win or it’s rigged” and 42% of the country believes his words over everyone else they know, they are literally telling us they do not believe in democracy. It goes much further. They isolate themselves in social circles. If folks are friends from opposing political viewpoints, the R will typically have zero interest in the views of the D, because, “it’s not appropriate to talk politics.” Take a peek at Reddit and see how many of the top forums include conservatives willing to have an open discussion about the direction of our country.

 Most appealing is Perhaps 25% of Americans are willing to use violence to enforce trumps words over the rule of law is closer to the reason why our democracy is so fragile. If a few percent of us in swing states are outraged by the court and the damage the right has done to our democracy, we can easily change the structure of the Court by picking up just two senate seats next year and holding the House. Since our elections usually turn into nonsensical arguments that have little to do about the true direction of our country, that is not likely to happen.

We are the first democracy and perhaps have always been the weakest one. It is very difficult to get things right on the first try, and our constitution was a last minute Hail Mary to appease the slave owning states . What we are left with is a document that is nearly impossible to change, and one that nearly 250 years later, still does what it intended to do at inception, give the slave owning states outsized electoral power in federal matters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/supreme-court-politics-history/2020/09/25/b9fefcee-fe7f-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html

mace1229

cblock4life said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Thou shall not kill.  It's that simple to them.  And if life begins at conception, then it is killing.  There's no Christian argument that supports abortion. 

did jesus actually say that? i know it was in the old testament and one of the 10 commandments, but did jesus talk about it?

In the New Testament Jesus died for our sins and forgives us no matter what. The “eye for an eye” no longer existed (if you’re a good person) once Jesus arrived. 

I’m not sure some politicians know that the New Testament exists. 

There’s lots of examples in the NT to not murder. Is the argument that murder was in the Old Testament and not the new? Because it is.