Abortion Argument Within (f/k/a Biden to propose SCOTUS reform)

[Zoo_View]

What if someone decided they wanted to have slaves again. Owned slaves, sued for their right to have slaves, and the court granted it. Then everyone started building business on slavery, relying on its availability, etc as you mention. I guess the court in this hypothetical would be tied to allowing slavery forever.
The point being, people see abortion as a horrific immorality that has no place in society, much like people viewed slavery. Many people view it as something that needs to be eliminated at all costs, much like slavery. Your exposition about the court is fine and all, but some topics go beyond that. Millions and millions of Americans do not want to live in a society where abortions are free and easy. Hell, even a decade ago most liberals wanted them to be available safe and rare. The rare part has gone out the window. So, I understand your point about precedent, but disagree with it because I think the Roe precedent was horrible. You disagree and that’s fine. I don’t really care.

I’m dumber for having read this poast.

 

[superrific]

Certainly by volume. I think the arguments are a little bit cherry-picked. Let me do the same.

Decisions do get overturned. Plessy versus Ferguson enshrined separate but equal. Whole industries were built around that precedent. We had separate schools, hospitals, sections in movie theaters, even water fountains. It took a Supreme Court decision to overturn it.
The argument (by a lot of people across the political spectrum) is that precedent is sacrosanct until they want a position overturned. Then its time for a change while the other side bucks about a Supreme Court that has lost its bearings. Rinse and repeat.

Cherry picked? Are you f'n kidding me? I just presented detailed writeups of several important cases. I await your brilliant expositions. Oh, right, you don't know what you're talking about because you've never read a Supreme Court opinion in your life. Are we going back to the days when you call me names because you can't keep with my legal analysis (as if that's any knock on you)?

As you may have noted, I pointed out cases where overturning precedent is laudable. If you think that Plessy v. Ferguson is the same as Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed, then you're a bigger fool than I thought and you should just stay the f off the legal threads. To be clear, Abood merely held that workers represented by union can be required, as a job requirement, to reimburse the union for representing them. Plessy v. Ferguson was the linchpin of Jim Crow and one of the most shameful decisions in history (though Trump v. United States has probably topped it). In addition, changed factual circumstances are the best reason to overturn precedent. In 1896, it was fashionable for white people to describe "Negros" as intellectually inferior. By the 1950s, that 19th century social Darwinism had been discredited.

And of course, you didn't address any of the other points about what the Court has done. You didn't address how it eviscerated the 14th Amendment for no reason, or how it reverses settled understandings that have been with us for generations. You say "cherry picked," as if that's a magic word to defeat all arguments.

 

[tonman]

If it’s life in one place, which you admitted just now, it’s life in another place. You can’t decide when and where it isn’t life.

Okay let's try basics. There's evidence of life and then there's life. If we find a 2 day old fetus with similar gestation as humans (cause we don't know about aliens), that fetus is not a life form but an evidence that life existed at that place. However finding the fetus does not mean life is thriving at that place because aliens could have landed, discarded the fetus, and left and we stumbled across it. SO point is

If it’s life in one place, which you admitted just now, it’s life in another place. You can’t decide when and where it isn’t life.

There is life and then there is evidence of life. We find dinosaur fossils millions of years old yet the universe is only what 10009 years old?

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

Again just because it made decisions you disagree with doesn’t mean it’s broken and corrupt

They gave POTUS pretty much unlimited immunity. That is extremely dangerous and not supported by law or constitution.

SCOTUS is broken.

 

[akillesheel]

A man that’s been in DC for 50 years calling for term limits is hilarious. This comes down to Democrats not liking SCOTUS for actually upholding the law. If anything needs term limits, it’s Congress. Let’s just call this what it is, Democrats trying to destroy a court they don’t agree with.

this is so silly. the Congress/White house analogues to the term limits being called for exist - 2 years for the House, 4 years for VP/POTUS, 6 years for Senate. Biden, to stick with his example, hasn't been holding on to power unchecked for those 50 years; he's just consistently won elections.

public service is a job. denigrating those who spend their lives doing that job, simply for spending their lives doing that job, is foolhardy. it's a rube's argument to imply corruption just due to the word "Washington."