WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Lennys Tap]

It won’t be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.

Agree. The right screams that the left will confiscate their guns, the left screams that the right will take away their abortions. "Slippery slope" = fake news.

[brewcity77]

It won’t be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.

It will be sent back to being states' rights. So most likely there are 17 states where abortion will immediately become illegal (including Wisconsin). Only 9 states have laws that actually protect abortion.

[WarriorDad]

“Our” Chicago tribune. “Our” side. Another reminder that absolutely no one talks like this, and no one on this board thinks you’re anyone other than you. I’m actually Lol-ing.

No one talks like 4everwarriors would have been the appropriate response.     Yes there are people that talk as I do depending on where you were raised.  You come from a different era.  Our boys (our military or our team). Our neighborhood.  Our paper. Our community.  Our town.   My wife and I were at a fundraiser for a candidate in the last 8 weeks, and the term our side was used at least 20 times during the speeches given that night. 

[WarriorDad]

It will be sent back to being states' rights. So most likely there are 17 states where abortion will immediately become illegal (including Wisconsin). Only 9 states have laws that actually protect abortion.

Highly unlikely it is overturned.  Our side does this to get voters and money.  Their side does this with gun rights.  This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's.  We are practically in the 2020's now.   It is settled law.

[Pakuni]

Highly unlikely it is overturned.  Our side does this to get voters and money.  Their side does this with gun rights.  This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's.  We are practically in the 2020's now.   It is settled law.

I tend to agree that a full reversal is unlikely, but the Supreme Court has overturned its previous decisions dozens of times. There's really no such thing as settled law. It all comes down to the legal whims of nine people.

[mu_hilltopper]

The US will continue on the same path it's on now.  State legislatures will continue to pass laws that make it monumentally difficult to license providers, scale back the # weeks it's allowed .. until Roe's right will be so narrowly defined, there will be no providers, and no one eligible.

[Jockey]

Pretty ashamed I raised a homophobic prick who illegally records his teachers.

 

Great answer.

[brewcity77]

Highly unlikely it is overturned.  Our side does this to get voters and money.  Their side does this with gun rights.  This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's.  We are practically in the 2020's now.   It is settled law.

The challenge is already underway through the Iowa law. "Settled law" is a fantasy Susan Collins tells herself to get to sleep at night. The list from Heritage Foundation exists to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.

[muwarrior69]

Highly unlikely it is overturned.  Our side does this to get voters and money.  Their side does this with gun rights.  This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's.  We are practically in the 2020's now.   It is settled law.

Until it isn't: Dred Scott, Equal but separate education etc. Roe won't be completely overturned but could be limited. If I purchased a gun and a license to carry in Arizona and then returned to my home state of New Jersey with the gun and license I committed a felony in New Jersey just by exercising my 2nd amendment right to bare arms which SCOTUS ruled was and an individual right. So even the 2nd amendment has limits and not close to being settled law or equally protected in every state.

[WarriorDad]

Until it isn't: Dred Scott, Equal but separate education etc. Roe won't be completely overturned but could be limited. If I purchased a gun and a license to carry in Arizona and then returned to my home state of New Jersey with the gun and license I committed a felony in New Jersey just by exercising my 2nd amendment right to bare arms which SCOTUS ruled was and an individual right. So even the 2nd amendment has limits and not close to being settled law or equally protected in every state.

What I am saying is it will not be completely overturned.  Your examples are correct, and why states will continue to become bluer and redder in my opinion.  There are few places for the middle. Eventually there will be a red country and a blue country, only a matter of how we get there and how long it takes. Pray it happens without bloodshed, but in some of your lifetimes (the younger people here) it will happen.  The pull to each side is ripping the middle apart, both sides driving it.

[WarriorDad]

The challenge is already underway through the Iowa law. "Settled law" is a fantasy Susan Collins tells herself to get to sleep at night. The list from Heritage Foundation exists to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.

You are the exact target of the message.  The gun guys here are the exact target of the gov't coming to take your guns away message. 

[Pakuni]

What I am saying is it will not be completely overturned.  Your examples are correct, and why states will continue to become bluer and redder in my opinion.  There are few places for the middle. Eventually there will be a red country and a blue country, only a matter of how we get there and how long it takes. Pray it happens without bloodshed, but in some of your lifetimes (the younger people here) it will happen.  The pull to each side is ripping the middle apart, both sides driving it.

No, no, no.
Ironic that after railing against the hysteria of the extremes on guns and abortion, you espouse the hysteria of a vast red state/blue state divide and some sort of impending breakup of the U.S.
That. Is. Not. Happening.
The reality is, even in a "red state" like Texas, millions of residents vote Democrat. You think the 43 percent of Texans that voted for Hillary Clinton are taking part in some sort of red state revolution?
Likewise, in "blue" California, nearly 4 million people voted for Donald Trump. You think they're seceding to join a blue state union?
And what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't even vote?

The reason for the largely clear demarcation of red states and blue states in this country isn't because the people from those states are all in lockstep with one party or ideology. They're not. It's because the districts in this states are rigged to the benefit of the party in power when the lines are drawn.

I mean, this country wrestled with slavery for nearly a century before going to war over it, but you think there's going to be some big breakup over assault rifles and a wall?

[brewcity77]

You are the exact target of the message.  The gun guys here are the exact target of the gov't coming to take your guns away message.

No, I vote regardless. Always have.

[WarriorDad]

No, no, no.
Ironic that after railing against the hysteria of the extremes on guns and abortion, you espouse the hysteria of a vast red state/blue state divide and some sort of impending breakup of the U.S.
That. Is. Not. Happening.
The reality is, even in a "red state" like Texas, millions of residents vote Democrat. You think the 43 percent of Texans that voted for Hillary Clinton are taking part in some sort of red state revolution?
Likewise, in "blue" California, nearly 4 million people voted for Donald Trump. You think they're seceding to join a blue state union?
And what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't even vote?

The reason for the largely clear demarcation of red states and blue states in this country isn't because the people from those states are all in lockstep with one party or ideology. They're not. It's because the districts in this states are rigged to the benefit of the party in power when the lines are drawn.

I mean, this country wrestled with slavery for nearly a century before going to war over it, but you think there's going to be some big breakup over assault rifles and a wall?

My hopes are you are correct.  Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now.  We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies.  The extremes are more extreme than ever.  It worries me.  The middle has become smaller.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

My hopes are you are correct.  Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now.  We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies.  The extremes are more extreme than ever.  It worries me.  The middle has become smaller.

This sounds awfully familiar.  Hmm...

[Pakuni]

My hopes are you are correct.  Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now.  We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies.  The extremes are more extreme than ever.  It worries me.  The middle has become smaller.

So, in response to my post mentioning the Civil War, you can actually claim that "the extremes are more extreme than ever?"
Hmmm.
Civil War aside ...
- In an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, there were 2,500 domestic bombings in this country
- In the mid 1860s, anti-immigration riots killed hundreds in major cities like New York and Philadelphia
- Dozens were murdered in the 1950s and 1960s for their participation in the Civil Rights Movement
- Anarchists set off dozens of targeting political leaders in 1919. That was 18 years after an anarchist assassinated President William McKinley.
- In 1995, a right wing terrorist blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 169 people

I don't know if you suffer from recency bias or what, but no, the extremes are NOT more extreme than ever because Kirstjen Nielsen couldn't eat her taco in peace and people can be rude on Facebook.

[Benny B]

Depending on the terms, would consider it. 

This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination.  Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls.  Their side uses it to drive people to the polls.  But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides.  But name the terms and will consider.

And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?

[Pakuni]

And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?

How do you impose mandatory voting without violating the First Amendment?

[brewcity77]

And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?

At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.

[mu03eng]

At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.

I don't disagree, but the thing I struggle to wrap my head around is how do you ensure that people who are voting should/are allowed to vote. I totally get that voter fraud seems to be relatively rare, but I think in part that's because a lot of people aren't voting generally. Automatic registration makes voter fraud more viable.

I'm really torn on the whole thing because I absolutely want to make sure everyone who wants to vote can, but I also want to preserve the sanctity of every vote cast.

[muwarrior69]

At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.

...but there are Judges who have ruled that even proof of citizenship is an obstacle to voting.

[Benny B]

How do you impose mandatory voting without violating the First Amendment?

Red herring.

Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment.  Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.

But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."

[buckchuckler]

Red herring.

Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment.  Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.

But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."

Eddie

[Pakuni]

Red herring.

Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment.  Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.

But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."

Not a red herring.
Refusing to participate in the electoral process is a protected form of political speech.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.

Selectively harder for *some* people to vote.  It's a feature, not a bug.