Which SC will just overrule ... plus its not JUST about abortions, you know there is a shit ton of other medieval shit coming, Clarence told you what the next 5 items are, like same sex marriage etc. You need to stack the court. Yesterday.
If Dems could pick up seats then packing the court shouldn't be necessary. Couldn't a majority and certainly a super majority pass whatever laws needed to protect women's abortion rights and also SS marriage rights as well?
If the congress passes laws counteracting or conflicting with US supreme court rulings then is that not the final say? Can congress pass any laws it wants to that would be SCOTUS immune? Who has the last word, congress and its laws or SCOTUS rulings? I though it was congress.
If it is not congress having the final say then why would dems holding a super majority feel they could pass new laws protecting abortion rights? Would not SCOTUS just shoot any new laws down?
And if SCOTUS does have the power of the final say then that would be pretty bad for democracy. That would give the supreme court the power to determine what laws the country operates under. The high court would in fact be making the laws as well as deciding the laws, thus anything congress might do would be moot.
Yes, all democracies run on norms and the norm is that SCOTUS has the last say. With all things there has to be a limit though - for example what if SCOTUS ruled it was now in charge of the army and would be giving the orders, would it be wrong to ignore this? At some point it becomes a question of institutional legitimacy. For example it's entirely possible this week that SCOTUS may effectively rule that almost all federal regulations are unconstitutional. Should the president sit by and let the federal government implode? I would say no, he should ignore their ruling.That is true for anything isn't it? What if we all just decided to ignore Congress?
I guess impeachment would be preferable ... Maybe?Unnecessary. If Dems get the 2 Senate pickups, fillibuster is gone. They will be able to push through federal abortion bill, BBB and stronger gun legislation. And voters will see what Dems can do and will continue to pickup seats in 2024. Get the supermajority in the Senate so they can impeach justices. Swing court back to 5-4 and Roberts can't do anything about it.
Are you for real? We aren't arguing the intent of the law. What is with people and their inability to even comprehend what is being discussed? Maybe go back and read the full discussion/argument so you can understand and comprehend what is being argued and the point I am making. That would be a good start.Is this for real? The intent of the law was clearly to make clinics and doctors afraid to operate and it worked. If you can make people sufficiently fearful you don't even actually have to sue, just the threat is enough.
All this legalistic handwringing is farcical in the face of a court that is just making up its own facts about cases when the law can't be sufficiently contorted for what they want. Just impotence and denial personified.
wow, looks like some leo's found their balls while attack women
A friend of mine once told me that Christianity is just a giant Communist organization. I didn't take her seriously at the time, she's the type that would stay and argue with religious zealots loitering college campuses but it makes so much sense now.Thanks. I'm just concerned to see liberals continuing to argue in good faith with conservatives who don't give a shit about that.
It's not unborn babies that's the issue here. That's just a red herring to serve their emotional needs. The issue here is the 4a right to be secure in one person (which this SCOTUS has decided in unenumrated, as if that mattera) and the 14a guarantee to equal protection of the laws (which conservatives believe is communism). We need IMO to argue these points.
Just like they have done with the voting rights act and have almost done twice with ACA.SCOTUS has final say. They can declare any law unconstitutional and the only solution would be an amendment, which requires much more than a supermajority, it requires ratification by the states. Since the current court does not feel it needs to be constrained by any given reading of the Constitution, or even the facts, it will be easy to call anything they feel like unconstitutional.
We have decided, we are Germany circa 1934.
wow, looks like some leo's found their balls while attack women
We have decided, we are Germany circa 1934.
Police fighting back stronger to peaceful women walking across the street than to nazis storming the capital.
A friend of mine once told me that Christianity is just a giant Communist organization. I didn't take her seriously at the time, she's the type that would stay and argue with religious zealots loitering college campuses but it makes so much sense now.
It was very clarifying to me when I realized that US evangelical Christianity is a right wing social movement that decided to attach itself to a religion, not a religion that became a social movement.sorta, their akin to communism in practice but not in ideology. Authoritarians by nature, by practice, by theology, but very few modern Christian’s really read the Bible and apply it objectively. If they did, it would be socialism in practice.
Yes, all democracies run on norms and the norm is that SCOTUS has the last say. With all things there has to be a limit though - for example what if SCOTUS ruled it was now in charge of the army and would be giving the orders, would it be wrong to ignore this? At some point it becomes a question of institutional legitimacy. For example it's entirely possible this week that SCOTUS may effectively rule that almost all federal regulations are unconstitutional. Should the president sit by and let the federal government implode? I would say no, he should ignore their ruling.
It was very clarifying to me when I realized that US evangelical Christianity is a right wing social movement that decided to attach itself to a religion, not a religion that became a social movement.
Their social conservatism informs their theology, not the other way around.
SCOTUS has "final say" only if everyone else agrees to go along. Given that they seem to be on a path of inconsistency/hypocrisy, it isn't outrageous to suggest that someone may just decide to ignore what they say on certain subjects. Wouldn't be the first time, and who is going to enforce it?
It's a very serious problem, I agree, but it would be a response to an attempt by the judicial branch to usurp the legislative and executive powers, which is just as dangerous if not moreso as they are unelected and unaccountable.Once we decide that following the rulings of SCOTUS is optional what stops anyone else from doing the same? Does Texas then get to ignore Griswald, Lawrence, and Obergefell because they feel they were ruled incorrectly? At that point have we not just thrown out the rule of law? Can Alabama now ignore Brown v. Board of Education?
That would be the beginning of a civil war as the Federal Government is forced to send in the National Guard to enforce the rules it thinks are legitimate all while ignoring the ones it thinks is not.
I know some of them and they are mystified how their parents and friends have changed. They spent their formative years in the 90's being told by parents and authority figures that personal morality for elected officials was of paramount importance only to see those same people embrace the most utterly immoral person ever to hold the presidency, usually excusing it by either claiming all his immoral acts never happened or that he had become a true Christian now so it was all fine. The same people who said moral relativism was a great sickness infecting the country threw that out the window too.Yes, well put and thank for clarifying that. Religion is just a tool for them to beat others into submission.
You CAN find actual Christians out there, but it's not always easy.
wow, looks like some leo's found their balls while attack women
I know some of them and they are mystified how their parents and friends have changed. They spent their formative years in the 90's being told by parents and authority figures that personal morality for elected officials was of paramount importance only to see those same people embrace the most utterly immoral person ever to hold the presidency, usually excusing it by either claiming all his immoral acts never happened or that he had become a true Christian now so it was all fine. The same people who said moral relativism was a great sickness infecting the country threw that out the window too.
It was very difficult for one friend of mine to accept that to a lot of her fellow church members Christianity is important, but not as important as the broader social movement so when they came into conflict, Christianity gave way.
Glad to see you here.With all due respect, none of that are the actual issues. Conservatives don't care about unborn fetuses and never have. They don't care whether life begins at conception or birth. They don't care that outlawing abortion will have no overall impact on the rate that women will have an abortion. And they for sure don't care that outlawing abortion does nothing to solve the problem as to why a woman might want to get an abortion in the first place.
All they care about is casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
Liberals need to stop making liberal arguments at conservatives because conservatives don't care about liberal arguments. They don't think that way. They don't believe in the Golden rule or "there but for the Grace of God go I." They're not rational or logical wrt ethics or justice.
Conservatives think in emotional terms of us (in-groups) and them (out-groups). Which, in this case, means that any woman unfortunate enough to have had sex (consenual or not) with a man that resulted in a pregnancy where the man won't provide for the child is automatically outcast. And that is all conservatives care about. Casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
With this in mind, I hope that liberals can move past conservative red herrings and recognize the real issues. Which is the only agenda conservatives for a better society is to use the govt to punish and otherwise remove from society everyone they see as 'them.'
I sincerely hope liberals stop arguing pedantics and start taking this threat seriously.. before it's too late.