recognize the delusion wrote:
The left is a very organized/funded machine, and will attempt to disrupt every move by the new administration. It is a natural reaction to the complete self-destruction of the democratic party... which ultimately, will destroy the machine.
And the Right is only filled with humble, peaceful folks that donate a few paltry dollars a month through their church....
True story!
Fentrekker wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:Except that Gorsuch is a known quantity. You do realize that he went through a confirmation hearing in the Senate back in 2006 and had democrat support. Your scare tactics are hilarious.
He is only partly a known quantity. His junior rank means that many of the issues about which he will be asked to rule have never come before him as a judge. What we do know is that he is as least as conservative as Scalia, a man who held views considerably to the right of even Donald Trump.
Further to the right than even Donald Trump, the former Democrat, and now not even a Conservative (more of a Populist)? Jumpin' Jehosaphat!
This thread is interesting. What a mix of freaks posting crazy insults & copy & pasting lunatic articles, and adults posting actual analysis, all mixed together.
Interesting.
I'm just wondering whether less powerful people, like the babies that science proves are in the womb, have rights--or is that just for people who can vote Democratic?
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Paul Tuttle, Esq. wrote:So not believing in the made up "right" to kill a baby is a disqualifier in your book, huh? Pro-convenience and anti-responsibility, but not pro-science, I see.
I declare drinking alcohol wrong and seek legislation to punish all that do as you declare abortion wrong and seek to punish anyone whose opinion differs. How did prohibition turn out?
In the U.S., you are free to live by your own ethics/morals. We live together, freely not always agreeing with each other. Don't take away freedom from others. It has bad consequences.
Fentrekker wrote:
(_:(0) D'oh! wrote:Incorrect: In the USA, for example, while some favor permitting direct abortion, they do so only for a much more limited set of circumstances than are now permitted.
And do watch your diction: abortion is post-reproductive.
You know perfectly well that globally you are in the minority.
1. One of the reasons there are courts is to protect against the tyrannies of a majority.
2. Again, I think some people feel there should be some tolerance of direct abortion for a limited set of circumstances, but a much smaller set than exists in the US, Canada, North Korea and China, which have the fewest limitations regarding direct abortion. I myself feel that it is never just to deliberately kill an innocent human being. I am heartened to have read a statement attributed to the new Supreme Court nominee that he believes the same.
800 dude wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:7. I'm a bit troubled by his opinions on religious matters, both as to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, including his concurrence in the Hobby Lobby case that went to the Supreme Court.Hobby Lobby was a statutory case and, frankly, a very easy one. RFRA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and everyone knew what it meant. It was only when Christians rather than religious minorities started using it that some judges started to freak out and pretend that the statute meant something other than what it says. In a constitutional case, I would expect Gorsuch to follow Employment Division v. Smith.
I agree with most of your comments on this thread, but we perhaps differ a bit on this. The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby asserted both statutory (RFRA) and constitutional (Free Exercise Clause) claims. The district court denied injunctive relief as to both. The Tenth Circuit, acting en banc, reversed, remanding for further proceedings on the RFRA claim without reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. In doing so, however, the majority -- including Judge Gorsuch -- held that Hobby Lobby had standing as a "person" under both RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, despite the absence of governing precedent as to whether and to what extent for-profit corporations (in this case, a closely held corporation) can be "persons" under either. Judge Gorsuch, in his concurrence, went further, holding that the shareholders themselves also had standing, at least under RFRA, to assert that the ACA violated their individual rights to exercise their religion. There were a number of concurring and dissenting opinions, including one by Chief Judge Briscoe, who discussed extensively her reasons for disagreeing with the majority's holdings that Hobby Lobby was a "person" under the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA.
In the Supreme Court, the majority largely avoided questions about whether for-profit corporations are persons who can exercise religion for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg did not, arguing that RFRA effectively incorporated pre-Smith jurisprudence under the Free Exercise Clause as to the meaning of terms like "person" and "exercise of religion." So, at least among the Tenth Circuit judges and a couple of the dissenting justices, competing views about the scope of the Free Exercise Clause seemed to play an important role.
I don't know whether I would consider Hobby Lobby a "very easy case." I suspect that I would not. But it may be worth noting that, if all of the justices found it so, then we currently have four justices who found it very easy to come out one way, and four others who found it very easy to come out the other way. That, I think, would be strong grounds for cynicism about this whole process.
I expect Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed, and I expect to dislike the outcome of many of his decisions. I think I can live with that, as long as I can respect the process by which he reaches them. I didn't always feel that about his immediate predecessor on this seat.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
recognize the delusion wrote:The left is a very organized/funded machine, and will attempt to disrupt every move by the new administration. It is a natural reaction to the complete self-destruction of the democratic party... which ultimately, will destroy the machine.
And the Right is only filled with humble, peaceful folks that donate a few paltry dollars a month through their church....
True story!
I believe the folks on the Right tend to give more than the folks on the Left. Too bad if the fact that some of it goes to their churches chaps your hide.
Paul Tuttle, Esq. wrote:
I'm just wondering whether less powerful people, like the babies that science proves are in the womb, have rights--or is that just for people who can vote Democratic?
You are free to feel that way and live your life in that way. I am free to live it another way. We can, and do, live together as neighbors.
Social freedom is one of the foundations of this country. Don't take away my freedoms away. Don't punish women for having sex.
If you are so dedicated to children and "life", there are plenty of kids even in the U.S. that need all kinds of assistance. You can fulfill your obsession with protecting children easily in the U.S.
Any chance we can work together to get easy access to birth control and some education to back it up? Any chance at all?
There are lots of opportunities here to work together to meet your goal besides restricting my freedom and punishing women. Is there any chance at all we could work together on the things with which we both agree?
Chuck Schumer's tears wrote:
I believe the folks on the Right tend to give more than the folks on the Left. Too bad if the fact that some of it goes to their churches chaps your hide.
Good job changing the subject.
Don't tell me what I think. One of the common features of stable, prosperous societies is a strong social network. (Churches) I know facts and history are forbidden subjects, but, religious freedom COMBINED with pluralism is well understood as a net good.
The U.S. had quite secure religious freedoms and steadfast pluralism until Trump's election. Don't take that away. Nobody wins.
theohiostate wrote:
Bet you can't watch.
Thank you for making my point for me. This isn't about "life." This is about telling others how to live.
I like my freedom and you currently enjoy it whether you know it or not. (You don't.) Don't take it away from us.
No its about taking away life. Pure and simple. I appreciate that you try to be reasonable in your posts even when expressing unreasonable positions, but abortion is not a privacy or woman's right issue. It's murder.pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
theohiostate wrote:Bet you can't watch.
Thank you for making my point for me. This isn't about "life." This is about telling others how to live.
I like my freedom and you currently enjoy it whether you know it or not. (You don't.) Don't take it away from us.
lipstick on a pig wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:No its about taking away life. Pure and simple. I appreciate that you try to be reasonable in your posts even when expressing unreasonable positions, but abortion is not a privacy or woman's right issue. It's murder.Thank you for making my point for me. This isn't about "life." This is about telling others how to live.
I like my freedom and you currently enjoy it whether you know it or not. (You don't.) Don't take it away from us.
That's your religious opinion, but it's not the opinion of the majority in this country and it's not the law. I encourage you to live your life in accordance with your religious values to include not having an abortion but you don't get to force your religious values on the rest of us.
Avocado's Number wrote:
I agree with most of your comments on this thread, but we perhaps differ a bit on this.
Fair enough. I did find the standing question interesting, though I wouldn't say troubling. I actually liked Gorsuch's opinion--not because I thought he was right, because I'm not sure--but because I thought it was styled as though he were exploring a question.
My response was targeted at the loudest objections to Hobby Lobby, which concerned the application of strict scrutiny under RFRA. I did find it straightforward. I guess I'm somewhat cynical about the process, though I think it works more often than not. By my observation, judges from across the spectrum are occasionally, and unfortunately, willing to suspend the normal rules when a case is big enough and has political implications. Though perhaps one could argue that judges on the "left" are less hypocritical because they're more likely to subscribe to a judicial philosophy in which it is the role of the judge to temper the hard edges edges of the law, whereas conservatives often revel in concluding that "if the legislature doesn't like it, it must fix it."
I think I'm particularly sensitive to criticisms of Hobby Lobby because: (1) it is so commonly perceived as a constitutional ruling, (2) the (correct) assumption about constitutional rulings is that they are necessarily heavily informed by a judge's own, largely unconstrained, views of what is right or just, and (3) it would in fact be very surprising for the right wing of the Court to embrace a pure First Amendment right not to provide particular healthcare services.
800 dude wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:7. I'm a bit troubled by his opinions on religious matters, both as to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, including his concurrence in the Hobby Lobby case that went to the Supreme Court.Hobby Lobby was a statutory case and, frankly, a very easy one. RFRA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and everyone knew what it meant. It was only when Christians rather than religious minorities started using it that some judges started to freak out and pretend that the statute meant something other than what it says. In a constitutional case, I would expect Gorsuch to follow Employment Division v. Smith.
That's bad. Employment Division v. Smith is a bad decision and bad precedent.
lawfire wrote:
Geese and Gander wrote:Justices come from all different backgrounds. While not typical of most justices, Kagan had no prior experience as a judge before joining the SCOTUS, and she was 50 when she was confirmed.
Kagan had almost no experience as a lawyer before joining the supremes. I wonder if any of the justices have ever taken a deposition.
Justices actually tend to come from a pretty narrow set of experiences. Justice department, appellate court, SC. Kagan is a little unusual in that regard.
I would love to see a broadening of the people on the bench. In particular, I think it would be very, very valuable to have somebody who had served time as a defense attorney. Not sure that is politically tenable. They would dig up an actual criminal defendant and act shocked that a defense attorney had defended him/her.
Suspect this will get a little play but ultimately written off as childhood hijinks:
Gorsuch founded a club called "Fascism Forver" when he was in prep school:
sovereign citizen wrote:
lipstick on a pig wrote:No its about taking away life. Pure and simple. I appreciate that you try to be reasonable in your posts even when expressing unreasonable positions, but abortion is not a privacy or woman's right issue. It's murder.That's your religious opinion, but it's not the opinion of the majority in this country and it's not the law. I encourage you to live your life in accordance with your religious values to include not having an abortion but you don't get to force your religious values on the rest of us.
That direct abortion kills an innocent human being is not an opinion but a fact. And if staying the hands of an abortionist is to "force" one's "religious values," what words describe dismembering a living human fetus with a forceps, dissecting it with a scalpel, or, in the case of partial-birth abortion, inverting it to a breech position, pulling it out of the birth canal except for its head, inserting a scissors into the base of its neck to enable insertion of an aspirator, and sucking its brains out to collapse its skull? Surely something more powerful and horrible than "force."
sovereign citizen wrote:
That's your religious opinion, but it's not the opinion of the majority in this country and it's not the law. I encourage you to live your life in accordance with your religious values to include not having an abortion but you don't get to force your religious values on the rest of us.
Why is it necessarily a religious opinion? I'm not religious but I believe that an unborn baby is a human life during the time it is housed in its mother. My opinion is that physical milestones should be used to determine when life begins. The obvious difficulty with that is trying to agree on what those milestones are.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Paul Tuttle, Esq. wrote:I'm just wondering whether less powerful people, like the babies that science proves are in the womb, have rights--or is that just for people who can vote Democratic?
You are free to feel that way and live your life in that way. I am free to live it another way. We can, and do, live together as neighbors.
Social freedom is one of the foundations of this country. Don't take away my freedoms away. Don't punish women for having sex.
If you are so dedicated to children and "life", there are plenty of kids even in the U.S. that need all kinds of assistance. You can fulfill your obsession with protecting children easily in the U.S.
Any chance we can work together to get easy access to birth control and some education to back it up? Any chance at all?
There are lots of opportunities here to work together to meet your goal besides restricting my freedom and punishing women. Is there any chance at all we could work together on the things with which we both agree?
Sorry, I'm not saying you are stupid, but you frequently provide some of the most ironic and stupid arguments on this board.
Look at your first paragraph. Direct abortion is the very denial of freedom to live.
And face palm! Nobody is punishing women for having sex, although the availability of contraception and abortion, according to even advocates for abortion Akerlof, Yellen and Katz, has been the disarming of the shotgun marriage and the increasing impoverization of women and children.
Easy access to birth control? Hello, in New York City some 41 percent of all viable pregnancies ended in abortion in 2009 despite the fact that the city distributed 40 million free condoms during the same year. The Guttmacher Institute says about 54-55% of the women in the USA who had a direct abortion were using a contraceptive drug or device in the month they became pregnant with the human being they aborted.
Sex education? By whom, "educators" who speak of "safe abortion" as if it were health care and nobody were hurt?
jhujhjk;ug wrote:
Easy access to birth control? Hello, in New York City some 41 percent of all viable pregnancies ended in abortion in 2009 despite the fact that the city distributed 40 million free condoms during the same year. The Guttmacher Institute says about 54-55% of the women in the USA who had a direct abortion were using a contraceptive drug or device in the month they became pregnant with the human being they aborted.
Abortion numbers have been falling nationwide. Down as both number of abortions and numbers per live birth. The numbers are less than 1/2 what they were in 1990. This is due largely to more use of long-acting reversible contraceptives and a decrease in unplanned pregnancies, which are far less prone to human error and far more effective in the real world (the pill is very effective if taken as prescribed but in the real world, not so much). They could be lower still, but if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, I suspect the numbers will start to increase, reversing a decades long trend you would seem to want to support.
This is perhaps not the thread to get into this detailed of a discussion.