- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@techsouth saidDon't have to be clairvoyant.
And you know that how? You are also a mind reader?
Even the less intelligent REPUBLICANS know where
their party stands on the issue. 😛
@techsouth saidOn reading a tweet from Bernie Sanders, there is a reason I hadn't thought about; he called for a political response i.e. ending the filibuster and codifying abortion rights protection in Federal law.
You're stating my exact opinion as if I'm the one who doesn't get it.
I'll mention again and perhaps you can explain it to me. Why do prominent Democrats keep mentioning that this goes against the will of the majority of Americans?
I see no evidence the SC decided on the merits of what the general public prefers.
Of course, another political response would be ending the filibuster and adding 4 or so seats to the SCOTUS.
@no1marauder saidHow 'bout not ending the filibuster . Seems to work. Are you a mob rule type? 51% control the other 49%.
On reading a tweet from Bernie Sanders, there is a reason I hadn't thought about; he called for a political response i.e. ending the filibuster and codifying abortion rights protection in Federal law.
Of course, another political response would be ending the filibuster and adding 4 or so seats to the SCOTUS.
As to constitution it does not mention abortion. Is this Groundhog Day?
@averagejoe1 saidThe SC shouldn’t be appointed for life.
How 'bout not ending the filibuster . Seems to work. Are you a mob rule type? 51% control the other 49%.
As to constitution it does not mention abortion. Is this Groundhog Day?
The filibuster is ridiculous (as is tying different issues into a single bill).
It’s unhinged that Idaho has the same number of senators as New York. There has to be a scale to population: 1 for tiny states, 2 for the majority of states and 3 for the 4 largest states.
@averagejoe1 saidI prefer the rule of the majority to the minority at least where Natural Rights aren't concerned.
How 'bout not ending the filibuster . Seems to work. Are you a mob rule type? 51% control the other 49%.
As to constitution it does not mention abortion. Is this Groundhog Day?
Is the word "filibuster" in the Constitution?
Rights don't have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for us to have them; the Constitution didn't create any rights we didn't have already.
@shavixmir saidIt is my hope that Shav and everyone else who doesn't 'get' the purpose of the Electoral College will simply see these top 3 'pros and cons'. A short read. My favorite is #2, as I get a bit livid when I see a lib mob gathering for one of their causes. It puts to rest Shav's 2nd paragraph about the number of senators in each state. With any considered thought, you will all see the logic, and not have to keep typing about it anymore. Whew.
The SC shouldn’t be appointed for life.
The filibuster is ridiculous (as is tying different issues into a single bill).
It’s unhinged that Idaho has the same number of senators as New York. There has to be a scale to population: 1 for tiny states, 2 for the majority of states and 3 for the 4 largest states.
https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/
@mchill
We can hope that happens but the fix is already being put in place by the ultra rights, in the form of anti voting laws and the ability of legislators to simply throw out electoral college votes they don't like and substitute the ones who will vote their way no matter if 90% of the votes are against them.
Which of course means the end of democracy in the US and we officially become yet another banana republic but with a huge military they WILL use to the detriment of world peace, gay marriage out, contraceptives out, I have no doubt when all that happens the government will make Christianity the state religion and you will be judged on how well you stick to THAT doctrine.
So much for separation of church and state.
That has already happened with SCOTUS, make no mistake, this is a religious right wingers takeover of now SCOTUS and if we let them, our entire government.
@techsouth saidActually, one person, Justice Kavanaugh, did say popular feelings should be a factor in deciding constitutionality:
Just for fun, I suggest you count the number of times today you hear Democrats criticize this SC decision because it is NOT in line with what the majority wants as if that was a very important legal standard.
Should the SC consider what the majority wants or not? Pick one side and stick with it.
An even more fun fact, in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was decided (un ...[text shortened]... y in my opinion), I'm pretty sure that far less than 43% of Americans favored inter-racial marriage.
"The continued and significant opposition to Roe, as reflected in the laws and positions of numerous States, is relevant to assessing Casey on its own terms". Dobbs, Kavanaugh concurrence, Footnote 5
@averagejoe1 saidDid I mention the electoral college?
It is my hope that Shav and everyone else who doesn't 'get' the purpose of the Electoral College will simply see these top 3 'pros and cons'. A short read. My favorite is #2, as I get a bit livid when I see a lib mob gathering for one of their causes. It puts to rest Shav's 2nd paragraph about the number of senators in each state. With any considered thought, you will a ...[text shortened]... ut it anymore. Whew.
https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/
No. But since you mention it: scrap it.
Seriously. You can’t have 10% of the population dictating what 90% should do.
This is interesting. From the BBC:
Corporate America rushes to protect employees' abortion access.
JP Morgan, Levi Strauss and Microsoft are among the major US corporations rushing to protect their employees' access to abortion, covering expenses for those who travel for the procedure.
So, capitalism is stepping up for human rights, as democracy is failing.
That’s, well, a turn of events…
@techsouth
You don't see SCOTUS killing Roe V Wade on law principles because it clearly wasn't.
Whether you believe it or not they have turned from an impartial panel to a near 100% ultrarightwing puppet of the religious right. Not even a LITTLE bit impartial. Next comes a ban on contraceptives and ban on gay marriage and making zygotes have the status of persons, they are completing their conquest of women.
It is really that simple.
@shavixmir
I guess the founding fathers (note there were no founding MOTHERS) who wanted those small population states to have as big a say as the huge ones. Now it is used as a political weapon against the majority. Thanks Moscow Mitch.
@shavixmir saidBut I LOVE this example of a great business decision. We are big on money and success over here, Shav. The Boards realized they could make money on the backs of these people by giving them this assistance, a no brainer.
This is interesting. From the BBC:
Corporate America rushes to protect employees' abortion access.
JP Morgan, Levi Strauss and Microsoft are among the major US corporations rushing to protect their employees' access to abortion, covering expenses for those who travel for the procedure.
So, capitalism is stepping up for human rights, as democracy is failing.
That’s, well, a turn of events…
Do you not see the logic of this dude move on their part?
@shavixmir saidWhy scrap it? What ‘Pro’ in my link do you disagree with? Isn’t this a debate.?
Did I mention the electoral college?
No. But since you mention it: scrap it.
Seriously. You can’t have 10% of the population dictating what 90% should do.