We should all be celebrating things that will save the lives of minorities.
-
50
-
$baby wrote:
Half true wrote:
Abortion is still legal though. If you want one bad enough, you can get one. Plenty of women have been having to travel many miles to get an abortion before Dobbs. In 2019 there were 6 states with only 1 abortion clinic. It’s not like there was a planned parenthood on every street corner.
Activist groups and companies are saying they’ll even pay for womens travel expenses. The people who are dead set on getting an abortion can still get one.
Two problems here, though.
1) women with lack of knowledge, travel, money, healthcare (more likely to be low income and minority) are going to bear the burden of this law because they are the ones who will find it difficult to get to an already limited number of clinics (even if the resources to coordinate travel and expenses to get to out of state clinics are available). For instance, Jackson Women's Health, the clinic named in the Dobbs case, is (now was) the only clinic in Mississippi (a state with one of the highest (the highest) of people below the poverty line and African American residents. The closest clinic accepting patients to that state is in Illinois (which is literally like a different country if you are born and raised in rural Miss.)
2) abortion is not "still legal though;" the laws of several states (Alabama comes immediately to mind) prohibits the mailing of abortion-inducing pills, it criminalizes doctors from performing abortions with lengthy prison sentences, and seeks to prohibit its citizens from crossing state lines to access abortion services. I will note that J.Kavanaugh specifically stated that if challenged, he would find such a provision to be unconstitutional based on the constitutional right to travel. However, note that there is no explicit "right to travel" just as there is no explicit "right to privacy" (on which abortion rights are based), therefore this leaves open the possibility that the justices may decide that cases which found such a right to travel were wrongly decided and therefore not governed based on stare decisis principles. Lastly, there is support for the assertion that J.Kav's words should not be taken at face value bc regardless of what a previous poster stated, there is a record of him specifically stating that he is not a "rock the boat kind of judge" and that he viewed Roe as settled law (both Susan Collins (R) and Joe Manchin (D) have publicly stated they felt deceived by him specifically in regard to how he would vote on abortion rights.
1. Time for action groups to step up and provide education, funding, and resources. Pro-choice groups can put their money where their mouth is (just like pro life groups need to pony up and support more abortion services).
2. I’ve already cited Kavanaugh’s statement on right to travel. But sure, people can be skeptical if they like. I find it funny that senators, or any politician, would act shocked that someone changed their tune once they got into their respective office. Note, that I don’t think kavanaugh ever said he wouldn’t overturn it. He simply said it was precedent and should be considered as such. They were all careful with their responses and I think that should have been signal enough that Roe wasn’t necessarily safe.
In light of this, it’s funny to me that Biden’s solicitor general argued before SCOTUS that there could be no middle ground in the Dobbs case. There is talk that Roberts wanted to reach a middle ground, but apparently the court was told there wasn’t a middle ground.
11 -
No way a bunch of slave-owning 18th century white dudes could be wrong about anything.
57 -
El Keniano wrote:
No way a bunch of slave-owning 18th century white dudes could be wrong about anything.
Finally we are on the same page.
42 -
wejo wrote:
Second American Republic wrote:
I don't understand why the US constitution is weirdly revered by people in this country. It was fairly forward thinking for its time... but it was written almost 250 years ago. I think it's safe to say the world has changed pretty dramatically over the course of a quarter of a millennium.
To come up with a new constitution you're going to need founding principles and agreement on things.
I would argue most of those things we're in agreement with are already in our constitution.
One of the best points of our constitution is built in a process so that it can be amended. So that is the route to go in my opinion to make changes.
As a non-American, it seems to me that the main problem with the US system of amending the constitution is that senators are not elected in proportion to population. So you have a system that is often at odds with the majority view in the country. You got to convince enough senators from states where, for practical purpose, nobody lives.
42 -
Salus populi? Custodes? wrote:
Bad history student wrote:
The US constitution is the second oldest one after Belgium.
I thought the Belgian constitution was adopted in the 1830s. Am I wrong?
You are right.
San Marino has the oldest.
Belgium is only 6th after San Mario, USA, Poland, Norway and the Netherlands,
10 -
Bad history student wrote:
Salus populi? Custodes? wrote:
I thought the Belgian constitution was adopted in the 1830s. Am I wrong?
You are right.
San Marino has the oldest.
Belgium is only 6th after San Mario, USA, Poland, Norway and the Netherlands,
This is all predicated on the idea that a constitution is necessarily codified in a single document. For example the UK has a constitution, it's just that it isn't written down in a single document. Part of the job of the (UK) Supreme Court is to decide on what is constitutional. Whilst we get many things wrong, avoiding overt politicisation of senior judicial appointments is probably not one of those things.
20 -
Half true wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The question is whether your democracy is working or not. It isn't. It is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. You are facing a crisis of either autocracy from the radical white minority on the Right or the breakup of your country. The question then becomes whether either outcome can be averted by changing or even getting rid of your constitution. (There are democracies that don't have a formal constitution.) Is the constitution part of the solution or part of the problem?
Your takes are so bad.
Dems and progressives had no problem with the senate, electoral college or SCOTUS for the 40 years that they held most of the power.
Now that they are out of power, they want to say that the system needs changing? Maybe it’s not the system, maybe it’s you and the people in your party. Dems have moved more to the left and people don’t like it. All this social and cultural justice stuff turns a lot of voters away.
Polling shows that conservatives are more likely to have friends who have different political views than themselves. Progressives aren’t likely at all to befriend people of the other political side. They can’t relate to anything going on right now because they live in a bubble.
There’s nothing wrong with the constitution, just the mental toughness of a political party who wants to take their call and go home, or worse yet, want to turn the constitution into Calvin Ball.
You aren't keeping up with where your country is going. It is becoming increasingly polarised while the prospect of a majority consensus is disappearing. Bi-partisan solutions are receding. This is reflected in the prevailing view that the losers in an election - or a court decision - should just suck it up and go home. That is a winner takes all approach which can split a nation - as it did in 1860. "A house divided cannot stand" - as Lincoln said. You're heading there again.
The Constitution should be a force for unifying a nation on the basis of a common set of principles. It has now become a weapon in partisan politics, to impose the will of an extreme minority over the majority - as this SCOTUS has just demonstrated.
34 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Half true wrote:
Your takes are so bad.
Dems and progressives had no problem with the senate, electoral college or SCOTUS for the 40 years that they held most of the power.
Now that they are out of power, they want to say that the system needs changing? Maybe it’s not the system, maybe it’s you and the people in your party. Dems have moved more to the left and people don’t like it. All this social and cultural justice stuff turns a lot of voters away.
Polling shows that conservatives are more likely to have friends who have different political views than themselves. Progressives aren’t likely at all to befriend people of the other political side. They can’t relate to anything going on right now because they live in a bubble.
There’s nothing wrong with the constitution, just the mental toughness of a political party who wants to take their call and go home, or worse yet, want to turn the constitution into Calvin Ball.
You aren't keeping up with where your country is going. It is becoming increasingly polarised while the prospect of a majority consensus is disappearing. Bi-partisan solutions are receding. This is reflected in the prevailing view that the losers in an election - or a court decision - should just suck it up and go home. That is a winner takes all approach which can split a nation - as it did in 1860. "A house divided cannot stand" - as Lincoln said. You're heading there again.
The Constitution should be a force for unifying a nation on the basis of a common set of principles. It has now become a weapon in partisan politics, to impose the will of an extreme minority over the majority - as this SCOTUS has just demonstrated.
That’s your own view of the ruling based on a victim mindset. “The systems in place didn’t bring about my desired outcome, therefore, the system needs changing.”
SCOTUS sent power back to the states where the people can effect the change they want in their states.
Maybe the “suck it up” mindset can be traced back to Obama’s famous quote: “Elections have consequences”. That was basically his way of telling conservatives to suck it up and deal with what was going on at the time.
33 -
It is controversial because you people scare the hell out of me. I would rather have a guy from 1700 making my laws.
12 -
Half true wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You aren't keeping up with where your country is going. It is becoming increasingly polarised while the prospect of a majority consensus is disappearing. Bi-partisan solutions are receding. This is reflected in the prevailing view that the losers in an election - or a court decision - should just suck it up and go home. That is a winner takes all approach which can split a nation - as it did in 1860. "A house divided cannot stand" - as Lincoln said. You're heading there again.
The Constitution should be a force for unifying a nation on the basis of a common set of principles. It has now become a weapon in partisan politics, to impose the will of an extreme minority over the majority - as this SCOTUS has just demonstrated.
That’s your own view of the ruling based on a victim mindset. “The systems in place didn’t bring about my desired outcome, therefore, the system needs changing.”
SCOTUS sent power back to the states where the people can effect the change they want in their states.
Maybe the “suck it up” mindset can be traced back to Obama’s famous quote: “Elections have consequences”. That was basically his way of telling conservatives to suck it up and deal with what was going on at the time.
You have effectively confirmed what I said, by justifying "the winner takes all, suck it up" approach. SCOTUS sending the decision back to the states that will deny women's rights is a way of a achieving that. They won't stop there.
21 -
It is great by the lake wrote:
It is controversial because you people scare the hell out of me. I would rather have a guy from 1700 making my laws.
That's because some of their views pre-date 1700. More mediaeval.
30 -
All we need is for Mitch McConnell, John Jordan, Clarence Thomas, Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Kevin McCarthy, Matt Gaetz, Trump, the NRA and Proud Boys to jump off a very high cliff and all will be good with the USA.
23 -
Second American Republic wrote:
I don't understand why the US constitution is weirdly revered by people in this country. It was fairly forward thinking for its time... but it was written almost 250 years ago. I think it's safe to say the world has changed pretty dramatically over the course of a quarter of a millennium.
Agree with you or not, we need an amendment. Only running / track related threads on LetsRun. 😀 I come here for sport stuff.
But have at it with those who disagree with me and engage with you on such topics.
20 -
The Constitution is "weirdly revered" because it frames a democratic republic with a separation of powers, and includes a "Bill or Rights" that is a model for respecting it's citizens.
The point is to avoid authoritarian, despotic rule.But you'd know that if you tried reading it.
31 -
pr100 wrote:
wejo wrote:
To come up with a new constitution you're going to need founding principles and agreement on things.
I would argue most of those things we're in agreement with are already in our constitution.
One of the best points of our constitution is built in a process so that it can be amended. So that is the route to go in my opinion to make changes.
As a non-American, it seems to me that the main problem with the US system of amending the constitution is that senators are not elected in proportion to population. So you have a system that is often at odds with the majority view in the country. You got to convince enough senators from states where, for practical purpose, nobody lives.
That's why we have the house of representatives, you f*ck. It's so the people who make up large cities don't have mob rule over the entire country. Go back and take a high school civics class and this will all make sense.
33 -
Half true wrote:
Second American Republic wrote:
It’s really not simple…..
I’m also not talking about the Supreme Court, gun control, or abortion. These issues are just incidental to the bigger problem at hand, IMO. My concerns are more structural in nature
Maybe suggest some specifics instead of being vague.
I did indicate some more specific ideas in an earlier post. The biggest reform I would like to see is a shift away from a single executive system towards a semi-presidential or parliamentary system that utilizes party-list style proportional representation. I think a bicameral legislature is ok, but I would definitely like to see major changes to the way the upper chamber (Senate) is structured.
02 -
And these morons will not even say what changes they think should be made. We all know why they won't; they know their ideas are so radical everyone would reject them.
32 -
Weirdly Revered? wrote:
The Constitution is "weirdly revered" because it frames a democratic republic with a separation of powers, and includes a "Bill or Rights" that is a model for respecting it's citizens.
The point is to avoid authoritarian, despotic rule.But you'd know that if you tried reading it.
I think "liberals" understand this, they just don't like it and would rather rule by authoritarianism. You'll notice that they never question the US government system when they get what they want, only when they don't.
23 -
55YO wrote:
And these morons will not even say what changes they think should be made. We all know why they won't; they know their ideas are so radical everyone would reject them.
I literally just wrote out some changes that I think should be made. I don't think they're terribly radical, either.
03
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.