Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

13839404143

Comments

  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,117
    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
  • mrussel1 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. 
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 19,049
    mrussel1 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.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 22,770
    edited September 4
    mrussel1 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.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 35,054
    From a FaceBook post by a close friend (who has two young children):
    May be an image of text that says 00 DONT TREAD ON ME

    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 35,054
    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.
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,186
    brianlux said:
    From a FaceBook post by a close friend (who has two young children):
    May be an image of text that says 00 DONT TREAD ON ME

    i'd buy that shirt. that's awesome. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    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?  
  • curmudgeonesscurmudgeoness Brigadoon, foodie capitalPosts: 2,847
    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.  
    All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    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. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 22,770
    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.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 35,054
    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.
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 22,730
    term limits....

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

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    mrussel1 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.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 22,770
    mrussel1 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. 
  • curmudgeonesscurmudgeoness Brigadoon, foodie capitalPosts: 2,847
    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.
    All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 22,770
    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.  
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,129
    mrussel1 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.



  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,269
    mrussel1 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.
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    mrussel1 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.



    I believe the Athenian democracy in the fifth century BCE was first. Having said that, I agree with your post and it ties back into my original post in that the Republicans have been chipping away at the strong democracy you once had for the past 41 years. The over-politicizing of the Supreme Court is another example as is using the shadow docket to eliminate discussion on important social issues. 
    The ability or possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade would be impossible in Canada because we have a common law system. Judgements set the precedent (usually based on an existing statute) therefore once a decision is made it is binding forever. No judge on the Supreme Court can overrule a previous ruling. 


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 22,770
    mrussel1 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.



    I believe the Athenian democracy in the fifth century BCE was first. Having said that, I agree with your post and it ties back into my original post in that the Republicans have been chipping away at the strong democracy you once had for the past 41 years. The over-politicizing of the Supreme Court is another example as is using the shadow docket to eliminate discussion on important social issues. 
    The ability or possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade would be impossible in Canada because we have a common law system. Judgements set the precedent (usually based on an existing statute) therefore once a decision is made it is binding forever. No judge on the Supreme Court can overrule a previous ruling. 


    How are judges selected,  the ones that are binding forever?  And is it a singular judge or a panel?
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    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.
    These are two examples. Some like Justice Roberts do take their job seriously and do not make decisions based entirely on ideology. But I stand by my opinion that the Supreme Court cannot be politicized or otherwise “stacked” with an ideological slant.
    The legislative and executive branch is elected to make the laws of the country. The Judicial branch is appointed to interpret those laws and determine if they are if fact constitutional should a legal fight be required to get that far. In a republic, once the courts are owned what is left to keep the government in check? 
    Anyway, I am not an American and therefore usually stay out of these discussions: it is not my country. I feel for the women of the US who once again have to deal with old white religious men telling them what to do with their bodies. Behind it all, it is the continuing class and race warfare Republicans continue to fight to ensure they retain political power. 
    My country isn’t perfect, but the abortion issue has been long laid to rest. Conservatives in Canada won’t touch the issue because they know it is political suicide in our mostly secular society. 
  • curmudgeonesscurmudgeoness Brigadoon, foodie capitalPosts: 2,847
    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.
    These are two examples. Some like Justice Roberts do take their job seriously and do not make decisions based entirely on ideology. But I stand by my opinion that the Supreme Court cannot be politicized or otherwise “stacked” with an ideological slant.
    The legislative and executive branch is elected to make the laws of the country. The Judicial branch is appointed to interpret those laws and determine if they are if fact constitutional should a legal fight be required to get that far. In a republic, once the courts are owned what is left to keep the government in check? 
    Anyway, I am not an American and therefore usually stay out of these discussions: it is not my country. I feel for the women of the US who once again have to deal with old white religious men telling them what to do with their bodies. Behind it all, it is the continuing class and race warfare Republicans continue to fight to ensure they retain political power. 
    My country isn’t perfect, but the abortion issue has been long laid to rest. Conservatives in Canada won’t touch the issue because they know it is political suicide in our mostly secular society. 

    Yes, I've been impressed with CJ Roberts. He takes his role and the institution seriously.

    The court ought not to be politicized, but just this morning I was reading an editorial, I think from WaPo, about how stacking the federal judiciary with conservative judges has been a key objective of Republican politicians and an important part of their messaging to motivate their voters. Overturning Roe v Wade is what they dangle in front of voters. So I think we generally agree, but I see the process of choosing the judges as being more politicized than the judges themselves are.

    And you do ask an important question: if the courts are owned, who will keep the government in check? The last president hoped to do just that -- claim ownership of the judges, so he could rule unchecked. Whether it is out of self-regard or respect for the institutions and norms that have guided us thus far, I think very few judges would like to be seen as "owned" by another  branch of government.

    Many people here who are dismayed by the Texas decision (such as it is) remain adamantly opposed to political court-packing. I am, too, but more because I see it leading to never-ending escalation than anything else. As Rick Wilson says, Democrats tend to bring a soup ladle to a gun fight: Mitch McConnell had no qualms about  fabricating and discarding norms to suit his ends, should Democrats react in kind and dirty themselves in the process, or should they take the high road, respecting norms and doing the right thing even though it leaves them at a disadvantage? I don't know which option is best, TBH.

    Pete Buttigieg's idea, which started this part of the discussion, would be a way to de-politicize the court, I think. Each party gets to choose five justices, the remaining five are chosen by those ten justices. I think that could work. At any rate, we have learned the hard way over the past few years that simply having norms and traditions which we assume everyone will respect leaves us exposed to the malicious actions of people who have no respect for such things, and precious little regard for laws, either.

    What Texas is proposing is unconstitutional on its face. The court's decision, apparently, was based in the notion that since the law hadn't actually taken effect, there was no aggrieved party with standing to petition. At least that's how I understand it (not a lawyer!). Does that leave me optimistic going forward? No. But Roe is law, and the justices know full well that their role is to interpret law, and overturning prior decisions and/or laws is not to be done lightly. And David Frum was just the first of many people to observe that the right has been very, very quiet on this subject; overturning Roe is a popular idea in some parts of the country, but on a national level it's unpopular. On the fifth hand, we seem to be dealing with a lot of minority rule these days, so -- I don't know what's going to happen.

    And, yes, it will disproportionately affect poorer women and women of color. People with means and connections will find ways to get the healthcare they need. Cruelty is a feature, not a bug, in today's GOP.
    All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
  • 1ThoughtKnown1ThoughtKnown Calgary ABPosts: 3,888
    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.
    These are two examples. Some like Justice Roberts do take their job seriously and do not make decisions based entirely on ideology. But I stand by my opinion that the Supreme Court cannot be politicized or otherwise “stacked” with an ideological slant.
    The legislative and executive branch is elected to make the laws of the country. The Judicial branch is appointed to interpret those laws and determine if they are if fact constitutional should a legal fight be required to get that far. In a republic, once the courts are owned what is left to keep the government in check? 
    Anyway, I am not an American and therefore usually stay out of these discussions: it is not my country. I feel for the women of the US who once again have to deal with old white religious men telling them what to do with their bodies. Behind it all, it is the continuing class and race warfare Republicans continue to fight to ensure they retain political power. 
    My country isn’t perfect, but the abortion issue has been long laid to rest. Conservatives in Canada won’t touch the issue because they know it is political suicide in our mostly secular society. 

    Yes, I've been impressed with CJ Roberts. He takes his role and the institution seriously.

    The court ought not to be politicized, but just this morning I was reading an editorial, I think from WaPo, about how stacking the federal judiciary with conservative judges has been a key objective of Republican politicians and an important part of their messaging to motivate their voters. Overturning Roe v Wade is what they dangle in front of voters. So I think we generally agree, but I see the process of choosing the judges as being more politicized than the judges themselves are.

    And you do ask an important question: if the courts are owned, who will keep the government in check? The last president hoped to do just that -- claim ownership of the judges, so he could rule unchecked. Whether it is out of self-regard or respect for the institutions and norms that have guided us thus far, I think very few judges would like to be seen as "owned" by another  branch of government.

    Many people here who are dismayed by the Texas decision (such as it is) remain adamantly opposed to political court-packing. I am, too, but more because I see it leading to never-ending escalation than anything else. As Rick Wilson says, Democrats tend to bring a soup ladle to a gun fight: Mitch McConnell had no qualms about  fabricating and discarding norms to suit his ends, should Democrats react in kind and dirty themselves in the process, or should they take the high road, respecting norms and doing the right thing even though it leaves them at a disadvantage? I don't know which option is best, TBH.

    Pete Buttigieg's idea, which started this part of the discussion, would be a way to de-politicize the court, I think. Each party gets to choose five justices, the remaining five are chosen by those ten justices. I think that could work. At any rate, we have learned the hard way over the past few years that simply having norms and traditions which we assume everyone will respect leaves us exposed to the malicious actions of people who have no respect for such things, and precious little regard for laws, either.

    What Texas is proposing is unconstitutional on its face. The court's decision, apparently, was based in the notion that since the law hadn't actually taken effect, there was no aggrieved party with standing to petition. At least that's how I understand it (not a lawyer!). Does that leave me optimistic going forward? No. But Roe is law, and the justices know full well that their role is to interpret law, and overturning prior decisions and/or laws is not to be done lightly. And David Frum was just the first of many people to observe that the right has been very, very quiet on this subject; overturning Roe is a popular idea in some parts of the country, but on a national level it's unpopular. On the fifth hand, we seem to be dealing with a lot of minority rule these days, so -- I don't know what's going to happen.

    And, yes, it will disproportionately affect poorer women and women of color. People with means and connections will find ways to get the healthcare they need. Cruelty is a feature, not a bug, in today's GOP.
    We are thinking with the same brain here. This post encapsulates exactly my outside view of what is happening. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 22,730
    Judge shields some Texas abortion clinics from group's suits
    By JAMIE STENGLE
    Yesterday

    DALLAS (AP) — A judge has temporarily shielded some Texas abortion clinics from being sued by the state's largest anti-abortion group under a new law banning most abortions.

    The temporary restraining order was issued Friday by District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin in response to a Planned Parenthood request. Although the law remains in effect, the judge's order shields Planned Parenthood’s clinics, specifically, from whistleblower lawsuits by the nonprofit group Texas Right to Life, its legislative director and people working in concert with the group.

    A hearing on a preliminary injunction request is scheduled for Sept. 13. The temporary restraining order only shields Planned Parenthood clinics from Texas Right to Life lawsuits and doesn't prevent Texas Right to Life from suing non-Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in the state. It also doesn't prevent people who aren't affiliated with Texas Right to Life from suing Planned Parenthood.

    The law, which took effect Wednesday, prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, which is usually around the sixth week of pregnancy and before some women realize they’re pregnant. The law also leaves enforcement to private citizens through lawsuits instead of to prosecutors through criminal charges.

    If Planned Parenthood is ultimately successful in the case, it could become a model for other abortion providers to bring similar “injunction-type cases” against those who would be likely to sue them over alleged violations of the law, said David Coale, a Dallas appellate attorney who isn’t involved in the litigation but has been watching it unfold.

    Planned Parenthood said in a statement Friday that the law was “already decimating abortion access in the state, as providers are forced to turn people away” once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity. It said historically, 85% to 90% of women who have gotten abortions in Texas were at least six weeks into their pregnancies.

    In its petition filed late Thursday, Planned Parenthood said that even if it prevails in every case filed against the group alleging violations of the law, the lawsuits would still accomplish the law's goal to “harass abortion providers and others critical to a patient’s support network.” The group also said fighting the lawsuits could bankrupt those who are sued, since under the law they can't recover attorney fees and costs if they win.

    Texas Right to Life Vice President Elizabeth Graham said in a statement that her group expects Planned Parenthood's lawsuit to be dismissed and that, "until then, we will continue our diligent efforts to ensure the abortion industry fully follows” the new law.


    continues....




    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 28,853
    POOTWH is studying the issue. Brings comfort, don’t it?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 22,730


    Justice Department will 'protect' abortion seekers in Texas
    2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department said Monday that it will not tolerate violence against anyone who is trying to obtain an abortion in Texas as federal officials explore options to challenge a new state law that bans most abortions.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department would “protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services” under a federal law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

    Garland said in a statement that federal prosecutors are still urgently exploring options to challenge the Texas law. He said the Justice Department would enforce the federal law “in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion.”

    The federal law, commonly known as the FACE Act, prohibits physically obstructing or using the threat of force to intimidate or interfere with a person seeking reproductive health services. The law also prohibits damaging property at abortion clinics and other reproductive health centers.

    The new Texas law prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks — before some women know they’re pregnant. Courts have blocked other states from imposing similar restrictions, but Texas’ law differs significantly because it leaves enforcement up to private citizens through lawsuits instead of criminal prosecutors.

    Justice Department officials have also been in contact with U.S. attorneys in Texas and the FBI field offices in the state to discuss enforcing the federal provisions.

    “The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack,” Garland said. “We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”




    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,117
    Mexican Supreme Court gets it.. ..

    Mexico Supreme Court rules criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/americas/mexico-criminalizing-abortion-unconstitutional-intl-latam/index.html
Sign In or Register to comment.