team politics talking points.

[JohnRoberts]

It's a page or two above.

you can quote messages to keep the context related

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Your ar

Your argument boils down to "You are from Germany and can't possible understand the US constitution so shut up".

You have shown time and time again that you do not understand how our governmental system, as outlined in our constitution, works or why it was designed the way it was. You refuse to admit these facts or engage when called out on particulars (re: where is an abortion right extant in the constitution including amendments, what is the meaning and purpose of the second amendment, etc.). For those reasons I believe you are not a scholar of the US constitution.

 

[JohnRoberts]

These were nearly the exact limits in place under Roe and Casey. As usual, originalism is an answer searching for a question.

SCOTUS was not arguing abortion specifics, their problem with Roe was that it was a poorly founded ruling and there were multiple state lawsuits boiling up to repeatedly challenge. This has been a 50 year old tug of war between pro life/pro choice advocates. SCOTUS said "not my job mon".

RGB was critical that the decision was grounded in "a right to privacy", and felt it should have fallen under the equal protection clause: she had written extensively about this. The outcome would have been identical, but RGB was fearful that the privacy grounds would be used to strike it down: in other words, exactly what happened. RGB was staunchly pro-choice.

Exactly, she was critical of the legal basis/defensibility. Now it is back in the states jurisdiction to settle.

I would not be surprised if pro life states (like MS) get even stricter and pro choice states get even more liberal (as is their right). I saw a news report that the one remaining abortion clinic in MS was closing and relocating to NM. I don't have a dog in this fight.

JR

PS: Thanks for a mostly fact based discussion

 

[Matador]

Exactly, she was critical of the legal basis/defensibility. Now it is back in the states jurisdiction to settle.

I see this sleight of hand, but to make sure this is abundantly clear: RBG did *NOT* think abortion was up to the states to decide. She (like the vast majority of people who understand the law and aren't the minority of Federalist Society members) thought the right was ground in Equal Protection:

It was always recognition that one thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant; and if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law…

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

But let's not mince words: the current conservative majority was chosen expressly for this vote, and no matter what the original reasoning for the right to choose they would have found some cherry-picked argument out of the 12th century to justify abandoning it.

 

[living sounds]

You have shown time and time again that you do not understand how our governmental system, as outlined in our constitution, works or why it was designed the way it was. You refuse to admit these facts or engage when called out on particulars (re: where is an abortion right extant in the constitution including amendments, what is the meaning and purpose of the second amendment, etc.). For those reasons I believe you are not a scholar of the US constitution.

One more time: It is not really about the written rules and their interpretation. This is not about the law, it is about power, control, rule. The mechanism is going entirely in the other direction: Find a way to do what you want within the given framework. I won't get into a purely legal argument, since that is beside the point.

Look at the motivations, at the people involved, at the big picture. Focussing narrowly on specific technical points is purely a distraction. I understand that to focus on the small elements is the engineer's default MO . But in this case the small technical details do not tell the story.

 

[living sounds]

But let's not mince words: the current conservative majority was chosen expressly for this vote, and no matter what the original reasoning for the right to choose they would have found some cherry-picked argument out of the 12th century to justify abandoning it.

Exactly. They do not care about principles, they care about winning, dominating, being in charge. Everything else is window dressing.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

One more time: It is not really about the written rules and their interpretation. This is not about the law, it is about power, control, rule. The mechanism is going entirely in the other direction: Find a way to do what you want within the given framework. I won't get into a purely legal argument, since that is beside the point.

No, it is entirely about the words as written and their meaning. Judicial activism is invalid and is being overturned purely on that legal basis. Period. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Look at the motivations, at the people involved, at the big picture. Focussing narrowly on specific technical points is purely a distraction. I understand that to focus on the small elements is the engineer's default MO . But in this case the small technical details do not tell the story.

As an engineer who spent 30 years designing large, complex systems with people from multiple disciplines (electrical, mechanical, optical, software, algorithms, control, robotics, factory automation, etc.) I have learned how to think about systems and to identify salient features and points of failure. I am not a tunnelvision thinker as you imply.

You still haven't made a rational evidence-based argument for anything. Imputing dark motivations and casting shade is not compelling.

 

[living sounds]

No, it is entirely about the words as written and their meaning. Judicial activism is invalid and is being overturned purely on that legal basis. Period. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Preposterous. You may have a long hard look at the partisan political process of selecting these judges in the last two decades, and how and why and when judges of the one side were confirmed or not confirmed. How the court itself intervened in 2000 to ultimately influence the composition of said court and (at the very least) from that moment on how politics, and politics alone determined what, why and how that court decides. Even Roberts' joining the liberal judges in a few select decisions (decisions that were not about the power of corporations and other moneyed interests, but about civil liberties issues) obviously follows a long-term calculation of the reputation of the court.

If you really think these judges and the whole machine that spawns them (Federalist Society and other conservative think tanks) are not blatantly following, no, promoting political agendas you might as well believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I see this sleight of hand, but to make sure this is abundantly clear: RBG did *NOT* think abortion was up to the states to decide.

I never said that

She (like the vast majority of people who understand the law and aren't the minority of Federalist Society members) thought the right was ground in Equal Protection:

That can be true "and" that she thought Roe was poorly founded (on privacy).

But let's not mince words: the current conservative majority was chosen expressly for this vote, and no matter what the original reasoning for the right to choose they would have found some cherry-picked argument out of the 12th century to justify abandoning it.

Again facts that are not in evidence, while the pro life movement has been active for several decades. Pro life is likely one additional reason for supporting conservative justices. There are others.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Preposterous. You may have a long hard look at the partisan political process of selecting these judges in the last two decades, and how and why and when judges of the one side were confirmed or not confirmed.

I've been watching the process since the 80s, bud. I remember Robert Bjork. I remember what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas. I don't recall even the very leftmost nominees being treated anything like this by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Certainly nothing like what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh. You seem to be seeing a limited set of information through a distorted lens.

How the court itself intervened in 2000 to ultimately influence the composition of said court and (at the very least) from that moment on how politics, and politics alone determined what, why and how that court decides.

Is this your twisted view on the 2000 election case? Florida's election officials' incompetence led us to that moment. It was unfortunate that it happened, but sometimes shit happens. And Gore conceded.

Even Roberts' joining the liberal judges in a few select decisions (decisions that were not about the power of corporations and other moneyed interests, but about civil liberties issues) obviously follows a long-term calculation of the reputation of the court.

Again with the baseless presumption of guilt. Originalism supports the Constitution which limits government authority and power in favor of individual rights. You don't understand any of this.

If you really think these judges and the whole machine that spawns them (Federalist Society and other conservative think tanks) are not blatantly following, no, promoting political agendas you might as well believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

The agenda is preservation of our great Republic. If you find that offensive then I cannot help you. If the conservative justices were as wildly activist as you imply, don't you think they would have ruled when life begins? And then banned abortion at the Federal level? But they didn't do what the liberal-dominated court did in 1973. Not at all. They followed the Constitution which clearly has no currently enumerated right to an abortion and which leaves all matters not delegated to the Federal government to the States and the People (10th Amendment in Bill of Rights).

 

[Gold]

I plan on operating a motor vehicle tomorrow. There is no mention of it being legal in the Constitution. I hope I don’t get arrested.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I plan on operating a motor vehicle tomorrow. There is no mention of it being legal in the Constitution. I hope I don’t get arrested.

So long as you exercise this privilege within the law and don't kill anyone, why would you worry? Typical poor analogy.

 

[iturnknobs]

It is disgusting...
There are even theories out that the abortion Dr. in Indiana is some activist and the 10yo story is conveniently made up. I mean, even if she were, who cares if the story is made up and protected by Dr/patient confidentiality, albeit pretty disgusting in itself, at least it creates dialog.

I will do my due diligence and research your info, unlike others here. Kristi Noems response is not video trickery...nor is the Republican governor candidate for Illinois stating the same thing. Breitbart trolls are saying that the 4th of July shooting is fake. I assure you it is not.

Edit: please cite source, I'm not finding it

 

[iturnknobs]

So long as you exercise this privilege within the law and don't kill anyone, why would you worry? Typical poor analogy.

Using a mousetrap is more unfair to life than a first trimester abortion. Analogy fail as well.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Using a mousetrap is more unfair to life than a first trimester abortion. Analogy fail as well.

Show me where I said anything about outlawing first trimester abortions.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I plan on operating a motor vehicle tomorrow. There is no mention of it being legal in the Constitution. I hope I don’t get arrested.

It may depend on your state... While a libertarian might disagree, driving on public roadways is generally considered by states to be a privilege for them to grant/or deny.

Perhaps amusing, my mother (RIP) who was born in NC kept her original state driver's license that was a lifetime issue. Several decades later after living in a few other states she resettled back in her old home state of NC. Apparently there was a pretty amusing incident when she got stopped (probably for speeding) by a young trooper who asked for her driver's license and didn't believe that what she handed him could be valid. The trooper's supervisor said she was OK but requested that she get a new license ASAP.

JR

 

[john12ax7]

Are there any actual modern GOP members who are pro constitution, pro limited government, pro individual rights and liberty, with any sort of logical consistency? I can think of only one in recent history, and he left the party a couple years ago.

 

[Matador]

I plan on operating a motor vehicle tomorrow. There is no mention of it being legal in the Constitution. I hope I don’t get arrested.

There are many rights which have been adjudicated to fall under the various facets of the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments, which are never mentioned specifically by name in the Constitution (marriage, medication, telecommunications privacy, e-commerce across state lines). I mean, James Madison never saw a telegraph, right?

I mean, the words "assault rifle", "AR15", and "semi-automatic handgun" don't appear in the Constitution either, yes? In 1791, the framers of the Second Amendment couldn't have even conceived of anything other than a smoothbore flint and steel musket or a powder/ball single fire pistol, so therefore we must utilize the understanding of what constitutes an "arm" within this originalist context, right? We can simply rewrite the Second Amendment to read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear powder/ball single shot muskets and black powder pistols, shall not be infringed.

I would be fine with such an interpretation.

So of course that is what the SC decided in the recent New York gun case, right? Of course not! I guess the meaning of "arm" changes over time to denote any technological feature than someone could use to protect themselves, even though it could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was written. It's almost like the word "arm" changes over time based on modern standards. How odd!

It's also illuminating that Alito and Thomas opined about how abortion had no basis in the tradition and history of the United States, and cited 12th and 15th century English common law and Saxony statutes as proof, then in the very next gun opinion Thomas disregards a long historical tradition of gun regulations in England and in the new colonies in the 17th century, and writes:

Historical evidence that long predates either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions changed in the intervening years.

Except an originalist needn't bother with legal conventions that have changed over time, because originalism.

 

[Gold]

hile a libertarian might disagree, driving on public roadways is generally considered by states to be a privilege for them to grant/or deny.

This is why it's a poor analogy. I should have said I plan on operating a bicycle tomorrow and it's not expressly permitted in the Constitution. The main reasoning SCOTUS used is that since abortion isn't expressly permitted in the constitution it is not for SCOTUS to get involved in. If my state doesn't want to allow bicycle riding the federal government has no say in the matter.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is why it's a poor analogy. I should have said I plan on operating a bicycle tomorrow and it's not expressly permitted in the Constitution. The main reasoning SCOTUS used is that since abortion isn't expressly permitted in the constitution it is not for SCOTUS to get involved in. If my state doesn't want to allow bicycle riding the federal government has no say in the matter.

That is correct....

JR