Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Blue Waves and Red Waves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    Of course it wouldn't "resolve" the issue; I never said it would. But it would move the contentious issue to where it should be, which is the legislature, and away from the Supreme Court. Remember, an overturning of Roe v Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just lets the state legislatures (and to a much lesser extent, the federal congress) decide what policies to enact on it. Whether that be a blanket ban, a blanket allowing, or something in between is up to the states, and people can aim to change it through their state legislatures. By shifting where the battle is held to the states (the place where it should be held anyway), this stops the issue from infesting the appointment process as much as it has.
    On this we disagree. It is the rightful place of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That is a core function, especially of SCOTUS. Unfortunately, there is an untangle-able conflict in the world of abortion: the liberty of a mature adult who has committed no crimes, and the life of the unborn child. The fact that the woman is an independent human life is indisputable. The status of the unborn child as an "independent human life" has been disputed/discussed throughout the ages. IMO, SCOTUS did the best it could in Roe v. Wade, given the nature of the discussion. It falls to us to "solve" the abortion problem at a social level - not a legal one. There is no legal solution. I would think, after 70+ years of this debate, that much would be evident.

    As for taking it out of the appointment process, since appointees to SCOTUS and Circuit Courts (which are the ones that hear appeals) are made from the ranks of judges with a track record on the bench, I think the easiest way to get it out of the appointment process is to stop asking judges how they WOULD rule and ask them to explain the rulings they have already made. Their track record should speak volumes.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Let's get back to this part for a minute... what's your source for the claim that Gallego was convicted of a felony. I think by "the Democrat", you actually mean Carlos Uresti, who resigned earlier this year after 11 felony convictions. So he wasn't the one running.

      It was a special election in which another Democrat - Pete Gallego - was attempting to hold the Democratic seat for the 140th year, and got beat by a Republican who wasn't even a politician.
      Yes. And Ford didn't have anything to do with Watergate either. He was running post-watergate, and the seat flipped. We see this fairly commonly. When there is scandal, the party holding the seat often (usually?) loses the seat for at least some period of time even if it's not the scandal-plagued candidate running.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Yes. And Ford didn't have anything to do with Watergate either. He was running post-watergate, and the seat flipped. We see this fairly commonly. When there is scandal, the party holding the seat often (usually?) loses the seat for at least some period of time even if it's not the scandal-plagued candidate running.
        Meh, I think you're playing "cover my butt". This district was so heavily Democrat...
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Polls suggest a tough race for Donna Shalala for Miami congressional seat


          Democrats exulted when U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced last year she was retiring. Because the Republican congresswoman’s district leans Democratic, one prominent Washington election watcher immediately labeled the race “lean Democratic.”

          No longer.

          On the heels of two internal polls Wednesday that showed Democratic nominee Donna Shalala either losing or nearly tied with GOP opponent Maria Elvira Salazar, the Washington non-partisan election handicapper, the Cook Political Report, moved the needle back to the middle to “toss-up.”

          David Wasserman, who tracks House races for Cook and last week suggested that some Democrats were worried that Shalala had not pulled away, called it a “stunning turn” for a race that should be a “slam dunk” for Democrats.

          source


          Note -- "should be a 'slam dunk' for Democrats".
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Meh, I think you're playing "cover my butt". This district was so heavily Democrat...


            Not sure exactly what I'm covering my butt about. A Democrat state district went Republican. When you look at the Congressional Districts, there is one current Democrat district that is now in the "likely Republican" column. It happens. However, there are 17 current Republican districts in the "Likely Democrat" column and 38 of 40 "toss-ups" are currently Republican seats.

            Like I said - even in a world that is globally warming, you will find a glacier or two advancing. Heck - the explanation for why this happens is fairly simple, and perfectly consistent with a warming planet.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Polls suggest a tough race for Donna Shalala for Miami congressional seat


              Democrats exulted when U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced last year she was retiring. Because the Republican congresswoman’s district leans Democratic, one prominent Washington election watcher immediately labeled the race “lean Democratic.”

              No longer.

              On the heels of two internal polls Wednesday that showed Democratic nominee Donna Shalala either losing or nearly tied with GOP opponent Maria Elvira Salazar, the Washington non-partisan election handicapper, the Cook Political Report, moved the needle back to the middle to “toss-up.”

              David Wasserman, who tracks House races for Cook and last week suggested that some Democrats were worried that Shalala had not pulled away, called it a “stunning turn” for a race that should be a “slam dunk” for Democrats.

              source


              Note -- "should be a 'slam dunk' for Democrats".
              Haven't tracked that. RCP still has it at "Leans Dem" but (as an aggregator) they tend to lag 2-4 days behind the polls. From what I am reading, Shalala is running a lousy campaign and is basically acting as if she has a "presumptive win." That's one of the many mistakes Clinton made in 2016. Some number of candidates are going to do that, probably on both sides, and some number of them are going to be surprised.

              So you seem to be picking out an isolated story here and an isolated story there...and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you think the "blue wave" is not going to manifest? Is not going to be very big? Is actually going to be red?
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Haven't tracked that. RCP still has it at "Leans Dem" but (as an aggregator) they tend to lag 2-4 days behind the polls. From what I am reading, Shalala is running a lousy campaign and is basically acting as if she has a "presumptive win." That's one of the many mistakes Clinton made in 2016. Some number of candidates are going to do that, probably on both sides, and some number of them are going to be surprised.

                So you seem to be picking out an isolated story here and an isolated story there...and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you think the "blue wave" is not going to manifest? Is not going to be very big? Is actually going to be red?
                I don't have a clue, and I really don't care a whole lot.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  On this we disagree. It is the rightful place of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
                  I'm not sure how that's in any disagreement whatsoever with what I said. An overturning of Roe v Wade is a ruling on the constitutionality of laws, by saying that the laws in question restricting or banning abortion are constitutional. It's then up to the legislatures as to whether or not to enact them.

                  That is a core function, especially of SCOTUS. Unfortunately, there is an untangle-able conflict in the world of abortion: the liberty of a mature adult who has committed no crimes, and the life of the unborn child. The fact that the woman is an independent human life is indisputable. The status of the unborn child as an "independent human life" has been disputed/discussed throughout the ages. IMO, SCOTUS did the best it could in Roe v. Wade, given the nature of the discussion. It falls to us to "solve" the abortion problem at a social level - not a legal one. There is no legal solution. I would think, after 70+ years of this debate, that much would be evident.
                  This confuses me considerably. You say there is no legal solution to abortion, and it should be "solved" at the social level. But what Roe v Wade did was to provide a legal "solution" and to remove it from being solved at the social level, in other words, the opposite of what you advocate. If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would be doing exactly what you advocate.
                  Last edited by Terraceth; 09-20-2018, 05:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    I'm not sure how that's in any disagreement whatsoever with what I said. An overturning of Roe v Wade is a ruling on the constitutionality of laws, by saying that the laws in question restricting or banning abortion are constitutional. It's then up to the legislatures as to whether or not to enact them.
                    Then we disagree on the constitutionality of laws that impose a medical decision on women...

                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    This confuses me considerably. You say there is no legal solution to abortion, and it should be "solved" at the social level. But what Roe v Wade did was to provide a legal "solution" and to remove it from being solved at the social level, in other words, the opposite of what you advocate. If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would be doing exactly what you advocate.
                    Actually, not. Roe vs. Wade essentially said that government could not enact laws that infringe on a woman's right to make medical decisions for themselves. That is a perfectly constitutional position. Any other ruling would have the government imposing its will on the medical choices of a woman. There is NO constitutional doubt that the woman is a free agent with the right to make her own medical decisions. The rights of the fetus are seriously in question because it's status as a "human being" is in doubt. It's not for you - and it's not for me, but it is the heart of the debate/discussion. Throughout history, various points in the pregnancy (e.g., birth, quickening, etc.) have been legally used as the time at which the fetus became a human being. It is a debate that shows no sign of resolution, leaving the courts with little choice.

                    That means the only way to prevent as many abortions as possible is to act socially: work together to make unwanted pregnancies as rare as possible, and provide support for adoptions for those that do happen. Work towards abortions being safe and rare.

                    But I don't see that happening any time soon. Everyone is focused on "winning the legal battle," which will never be won. Right now, the pro-choice people have the upper hand. In response, the pro-life people are pressing and pushing to have "their way." If they ever get it, the pro-choice people will rally and push for things to be reversed again. The legal war will never end, and the children will continue to die: legally or illegally.

                    Personally, I think everyone fighting the legal war is contributing to the carnage - from both sides.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      I'm not sure how that's in any disagreement whatsoever with what I said. An overturning of Roe v Wade is a ruling on the constitutionality of laws, by saying that the laws in question restricting or banning abortion are constitutional. It's then up to the legislatures as to whether or not to enact them.
                      Then we disagree on the constitutionality of laws that impose a medical decision on women...

                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      This confuses me considerably. You say there is no legal solution to abortion, and it should be "solved" at the social level. But what Roe v Wade did was to provide a legal "solution" and to remove it from being solved at the social level, in other words, the opposite of what you advocate. If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would be doing exactly what you advocate.
                      Actually, not. Roe vs. Wade essentially said that government could not enact laws that infringe on a woman's right to make medical decisions for themselves. That is a perfectly constitutional position. Any other ruling would have the government imposing its will on the medical choices of a woman. There is NO constitutional doubt that the woman is a free agent with the right to make her own medical decisions. The rights of the fetus are seriously in question because it's status as a "human being" is in doubt. It's not for you - and it's not for me, but it is the heart of the debate/discussion. Throughout history, various points in the pregnancy (e.g., birth, quickening, etc.) have been legally used as the time at which the fetus became a human being. It is a debate that shows no sign of resolution, leaving the courts with little choice.

                      That means the only way to prevent as many abortions as possible is to act socially: work together to make unwanted pregnancies as rare as possible, and provide support for adoptions for those that do happen. Work towards abortions being safe and rare.

                      But I don't see that happening any time soon. Everyone is focused on "winning the legal battle," which will never be won. Right now, the pro-choice people have the upper hand. In response, the pro-life people are pressing and pushing to have "their way." If they ever get it, the pro-choice people will rally and push for things to be reversed again. The legal war will never end, and the children will continue to die: legally or illegally.

                      Personally, I think everyone fighting the legal war is contributing to the carnage - from both sides. There are other things they could be doing to try to solve the problem that would have a better chance of working.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Then we disagree on the constitutionality of laws that impose a medical decision on women...
                        That's different than what you said. You made the odd claim that the court should rule on "constitutionality" which any ruling would be. But as to the claim of whether it is constitutional or not:

                        Actually, not. Roe vs. Wade essentially said that government could not enact laws that infringe on a woman's right to make medical decisions for themselves. That is a perfectly constitutional position. Any other ruling would have the government imposing its will on the medical choices of a woman. There is NO constitutional doubt that the woman is a free agent with the right to make her own medical decisions. The rights of the fetus are seriously in question because it's status as a "human being" is in doubt. It's not for you - and it's not for me, but it is the heart of the debate/discussion. Throughout history, various points in the pregnancy (e.g., birth, quickening, etc.) have been legally used as the time at which the fetus became a human being. It is a debate that shows no sign of resolution, leaving the courts with little choice.
                        This seems to show a considerable misunderstanding of the legal criticism of Roe v Wade on your part.

                        First, the government most certainly can impose its will on medical choices. The fact prescription drugs exist at all is blatant evidence of that. So yes, the government absolutely can impose its will on the medical choices of a woman, or anyone else, so long in doing so it is not violating any other restriction on itself.

                        Also, your claim that the rights of the fetus "is the heart of the debate/discussion" is wrong, at least legally speaking. While some have argued that the Fourteenth Amendment protects fetuses, that is a minority opinion in the legal field even among those who criticize Roe v Wade. As far as I am aware, that idea has been advanced by no Supreme Court justice in the history of the country, even those who wanted the decision overturned. Indeed, Antonin Scalia, no friend to Roe v Wade, explicitly rejected that argument ("The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so." Emphasis original, taken from his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey). The reason Roe v Wade was wrongly decided is because it conjured up a supposed constitutional right without adequate basis for doing so, in much the same way that Dred Scott v Sandford and Lochner v New York did.
                        Last edited by Terraceth; 09-22-2018, 02:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          That's different than what you said. You made the odd claim that the court should rule on "constitutionality" which any ruling would be.
                          I'm not aware of having shifted my position at any point.

                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          But as to the claim of whether it is constitutional or not:

                          This seems to show a considerable misunderstanding of the legal criticism of Roe v Wade on your part.

                          First, the government most certainly can impose its will on medical choices. The fact prescription drugs exist at all is blatant evidence of that. So yes, the government absolutely can impose its will on the medical choices of a woman, or anyone else, so long in doing so it is not violating any other restriction on itself.
                          The government can control substances, especially those deemed harmful. That is a proper role. It cannot force a person who has not committed a crime and is of sound mind to make a particular choice about their body. They cannot say, "you will have a heart transplant," or "you will have a tonsillectomy" or "you will NOT have an appendectomy." Likewise, they cannot say, "you will NOT have an abortion." At most, they can settle disputes about who has the legal authority to make those decisions, and when a person is and is not competent to make them.

                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          Also, your claim that the rights of the fetus "is the heart of the debate/discussion" is wrong, at least legally speaking.
                          I was not making a legal statement. I was talking about the issue socially - though I have to acknowledge I did not do a good job of separating the two in my post.

                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          While some have argued that the Fourteenth Amendment protects fetuses, that is a minority opinion in the legal field even among those who criticize Roe v Wade. As far as I am aware, that idea has been advanced by no Supreme Court justice in the history of the country, even those who wanted the decision overturned. Indeed, Antonin Scalia, no friend to Roe v Wade, explicitly rejected that argument ("The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so." Emphasis original, taken from his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey). The reason Roe v Wade was wrongly decided is because it conjured up a supposed constitutional right without adequate basis for doing so, in much the same way that Dred Scott v Sandford and Lochner v New York did.
                          And what constitutional right did it supposedly "conjure up?"
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            I'm not aware of having shifted my position at any point.
                            My point was that if nothing else, you expressed yourself poorly.

                            The government can control substances, especially those deemed harmful. That is a proper role. It cannot force a person who has not committed a crime and is of sound mind to make a particular choice about their body.
                            Which is exactly what they are doing when controlling substances, they are forbidding people who have not committed a crime and are of sound mind to make a particular choice about their body.

                            They cannot say, "you will have a heart transplant," or "you will have a tonsillectomy" or "you will NOT have an appendectomy." Likewise, they cannot say, "you will NOT have an abortion." At most, they can settle disputes about who has the legal authority to make those decisions, and when a person is and is not competent to make them.
                            On what do you base this claim? Various medical procedures or treatments have in fact been outright banned by at least some states. It's not common to do so, particularly because discredited treatments generally fade away on their own and therefore negate the need for legislation, but it absolutely is something that states can do.

                            And what constitutional right did it supposedly "conjure up?"
                            Is this supposed to be a rhetorical question? The answer seems blatantly obvious.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              My point was that if nothing else, you expressed yourself poorly.
                              Always a possibility

                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Which is exactly what they are doing when controlling substances, they are forbidding people who have not committed a crime and are of sound mind to make a particular choice about their body.
                              That's a stretch, Ter. ANY law limits what a person can do, so thereby limits what they can do with their body." I think we both know we are talking about making medical decisions about medical procedures. Schedule 1 drugs are the only drugs the laws prohibits. Others are controlled, but not denied.

                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              On what do you base this claim? Various medical procedures or treatments have in fact been outright banned by at least some states. It's not common to do so, particularly because discredited treatments generally fade away on their own and therefore negate the need for legislation, but it absolutely is something that states can do.
                              So let's start by naming one of these medical procedures that government has "banned."

                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Is this supposed to be a rhetorical question? The answer seems blatantly obvious.
                              It's not a rhetorical question...
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                So let's start by naming one of these medical procedures that government has "banned."
                                Lobotomies (at least of the "classic" variety), conversion therapy, pretty much anything involving organ trafficking, and fish pedicures come to mind.

                                In fact, it's worth noting that your contention--that states cannot ban medical procedures or treatments, and therefore cannot ban abortions--is not even in tune with Roe v Wade or any subsequent Supreme Court decision on the issue. ALL of those decisions allowed abortion prohibition in at least some circumstances.

                                It's not a rhetorical question...
                                What right do you think Roe v Wade created? Of course I'm referring to abortion.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X