No post body was provided.
Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
531–540 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#532I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
>>Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people
The United States is a Republic not a democracy.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#533I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…
For me it's pretty simple: what causes the least suffering. Don't act that an unwanted child will have a great life.
Most sane countries have sane rules related to abortions. But I guess some people still hang on to an imaginary superpower that will make them live forever, if they follow certain rules.
I also find it funny that most pro-life zealots are also pro death penalty. Completely bonkers.
With retarded shit like this I'm very happy to live in Europe, where we already figured these things out generation(s) ago.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#534I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…
It's important to remember gerrymandering cuts both ways. In my state, the D's just redistricted into a crazy looking map that will effectively give them a clean sweep.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#535I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…
> In New York Democrats want to add four new seats through gerrymandering, to try to retain control of the U.S. House. One district is designed to guarantee the reelection of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has held hearings on the evil of — you guessed it — gerrymandering. [0]
[0]: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/592968-dismantling-demo...
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#536I'm asking in good faith, and ask for answers in the same: in a pro-choice framework, why do in-womb Homo Sapiens Sapiens have no rights to be considered, vis a vis the rights of the mother? In this context, I'm not implying that an unborn human's rights override those of its mother, nor imply what the right balance should be (50:50? 20:80? 80:20?). But pro-choice arguments tend to assume that the in-womb human has n…
Pro choice frames the question differently. To put it in an overly reductionist way: it’s not a human, it’s a fetus. This framing does create a problem of defining when exactly it becomes a human, which I haven’t heard a good answer to.
Right, so apart from semantics, I'd say it's the same question. I feel like the widely-presented pro-choice arguments simply make that assumption and then conclude, well there's no human in the womb so let's move on.
I'd like to probe into this assumption - and if with good reason the conclusion is that, indeed, it's not a human, then so be it. But it being a "naked", or poorly-supported assumption, irks me.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#537I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…
Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.
Well, Tennessee literally just split the 5th Congressional District, represented by U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, among three different outlying districts. Literally makes it 3X harder for a Democrat to represent Nashville.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/12/republican-...
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#538I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very c…
> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights.
Natural rights are a terribly shaky concept to begin with—hardly "real".
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#539I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
And the top comment goes to... a progressive pretending he can represent "the other side" while constantly taking side shots at them and stating that and why he doesn't agree with them... all with empty rhetorical gestures towards "moderates" and "compromise." Yep that sounds like hacker news to me: as little information and as much inoffensive pandering as possible.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#540I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…
Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed!
The real tragedy here is that it took 50 years for this egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.