The Many Faces of US Politics...

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

[J70]

It would be grand if the US supreme court justices were all robots who could parse an issue and look to the constitution in a cold, objective, scientific manner, but they're not. In the real world they all bring their own biases, influences and political motivations to bear in their job, which is partly why it can't be left up to just one of them. This so-called "calling balls and strikes" approach is rhetorical nonsense, but even if one does subscribe to originalism or textualism at least as a guiding principle, why is that objectively better than the "living document" approach? And if we are so concerned about the founders and what was thought at the time a law or amendment was passed, one thing we know for sure about the founders is that they were very concerned about tyranny of the majority (although these days its more the over-represented minority which is the problem) and the dangers of populism. And let's not forget that the Warren court was abhorred by the right for its supposed "judicial activism", starting with Brown. That arguments have since been made for the Brown decision from an originalist perspective doesn't change how they were perceived for years. They and subsequent courts correctly got out ahead of the government and the electorate on a whole range of issues, not just segregation, and people's lives have benefited from that.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the constitution being interpreted through a modern lens. Hopefully Alito's decision doesn't lead to the rollback of many of the gains society has reaped from that approach. Otherwise, good luck winning back any of those rights with the Republican party holding so much power.

[Eamonnca1]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

[Eamonnca1]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

Yes

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

Yes

By such logic, Scott V Stanford shouldn't have been over-ruled and the Supreme Court decision that slavery is lawful in all US states would still be standing. Similarly Brown V Board of Education could never have ruled that segregation is unlawful because Plessy v Ferguson had found that segregation was constitutional.

The argument that justice is simply blindly following legal precedent is a terrible one.

[Gmac]

As the country’s economy goes down the toilet the left has its eye on the looney tunes agenda as usual if this three is anything to go by .

[whitey]

https://youtu.be/GGLsceURTrM

Someone sent me this link of Sen Harley grilling Mayorkas about the disinformation board.

[Loughshore2022]

The abortion argument is a complex one for me, on one hand I'm an incel bachelor so it is not like they are aborting my offspring. On the other hand the double standards irritate me, if a woman aborts she is praised and called responsible, if a man decides not to pay child support and not be a father he is ridiculed and called irresponsible. Women get a get out of jail card whereas men don't. There is also hypocrisy in the argument about when human life starts. It seems when a woman wants a baby life starts in the womb but when she decides to abort it is only a "clump of cells".

[omochain]

As the country’s economy goes down the toilet the left has its eye on the looney tunes agenda as usual if this three is anything to go by .

Can you please explain how the country's economy is going down the toilet?

[Eamonnca1]

As the country’s economy goes down the toilet the left has its eye on the looney tunes agenda as usual if this three is anything to go by .

Can you please explain how the country's economy is going down the toilet?

Conservatives aren't interested in facts. "The economy is going down the toilet" is one of those unfounded talking points they keep repeating. Like "California is bankrupt" when it has a $68 billion surplus.

[trileacman]

As the country’s economy goes down the toilet the left has its eye on the looney tunes agenda as usual if this three is anything to go by .

Can you please explain how the country's economy is going down the toilet?

In the throes of the longest bear market since 1932, more interest rate hikes to come and inversion of the yield curve. From an economists view these are big red flashing warnings.

[Eamonnca1]

US unemployment rate:

[seafoid]

US unemployment rate:

Unemployment is a backward looking metric. Inflation is out of control. There is evidence of wage price spirals where expectations of inflation are built into negotiations  The only solution to this is higher interest rates. Debt is very high. Say 5% would wipe a lot of borrowers out. Debt wasn't priced for now. Markets don't believe rates are going to increase.
"
The worst thing that ever could happen happened after the worst thing that ever could happen happened after the worst thing that ever could happen happened.  "

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour, AKA Chuck D