Protecting the Constitution

[Hards Alumni]

It’s not the strong opinion that makes you a bigot. It’s the feeling of superiority that it engenders in some people.

Guess what, kid? You’re the poster boy.

I know your brain is a tad addled at your age, but you can't just make up new definitions to old words on your own.  Society determines meaning.

[lawdog77]

It means that if you should always be questioning even your own beliefs.  It's healthy.

Oh, I agree about questioning my own beliefs. I do it everyday. That called being an adult. Questioning others' religious beliefs, on the other hand, if it doesn't affect my ability to practice my beliefs, is frankly none of my business.

[Uncle Rico]

Oh, I agree about questioning my own beliefs. I do it everyday. That called being an adult. Questioning others' religious beliefs, on the other hand, if it doesn't affect my ability to practice my beliefs, is frankly none of my business.

Then keep religion out of government.  Until then, I’ll say whatever I damn well please about the influence of religion and how ridiculous religion is

[muwarrior69]

I guess I'm a bigot against flatearthers and astrologists.

Actually the only people I hate are bigots.

[Dickthedribbler]

I assume moral superiority to racists, xenophobes, homophobes and sexists. I judge the sh*t of these people.
Am I a bigot?

And you are able to do that because when it comes to racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism, you, and you alone possess the wisdom to have all of the right answers to wear that moral superiority.

Boy, I wish I could be like you.

[tower912]

Start with the assumption that racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia are bad.   Then work on yourself.   Then you can be like Pakuni.

[Pakuni]

And you are able to do that because when it comes to racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism, you, and you alone possess the wisdom to have all of the right answers to wear that moral superiority.

Boy, I wish I could be like you.

No. I firmly believe a large majority of my fellow Americans possess the wisdom to have the right answers on racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism.
I very much suspect you're not one of them, though.

[MU82]

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post.

The Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been widely interpreted to mean the separation of church and state — although the phrase is not explicitly used.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a political scientist at Harvard University, told The Washington Post that Boebert’s interpretation of the Constitution was “false, misleading and dangerous.” Calais-Haase said she was “extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains.”

[Dickthedribbler]

No. I firmly believe a large majority of my fellow Americans possess the wisdom to have the right answers on racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism.
I very much suspect you're not one of them, though.

As I said, I only wish I could be as good as you

[Pakuni]

As I said, I only wish I could be as good as you

I don't blame you.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post.

The Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been widely interpreted to mean the separation of church and state — although the phrase is not explicitly used.

Gwen Calais-Haase, a political scientist at Harvard University, told The Washington Post that Boebert’s interpretation of the Constitution was “false, misleading and dangerous.” Calais-Haase said she was “extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains.”

Your a brain surgeon too with a monkey wrench.

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

You say you wish to not have racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism? You’re better than me I guess.

Lol

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Protecting the Constitution? The five extremists are pretty much wiping their collective asses with it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html


"On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court crushed yet another key component of the Voting Rights Act, halting a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its egregious racial gerrymander. The court’s intervention in Merrill v. Milligan was so radically unjustified that Chief Justice John Roberts—an architect of the judicial attack on voting rights—dissented, alongside the three liberals. The court’s order indicates that the five ultraconservative justices are preparing to dismantle the VRA’s guarantee against gerrymanders that dilute the voting strength of Black Americans. Indeed, by interceding so aggressively in Merrill, these far-right justices have effectively nullified this guarantee for the current redistricting cycle.

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has bulldozed several key provisions of the VRA. But until now, it had not yet repealed the law’s protections against the dilution of votes cast by racial minorities. This shield, contained in Section 2 and clarified by 1986’s Thornburg v. Gingles, requires a three-judge district court to determine whether a redistricting plan carves up minority communities to prevent them from electing the candidate of their choice. Although the Gingles test can be difficult to apply, the relevant factors here are straightforward: Due to racially polarized voting in the state, Black Alabamians cannot elect their preferred representatives unless they constitute a majority of their district".

[Jockey]

Protecting the Constitution? The five extremists are pretty much wiping their collective asses with it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html


"On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court crushed yet another key component of the Voting Rights Act, halting a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its egregious racial gerrymander. The court’s intervention in Merrill v. Milligan was so radically unjustified that Chief Justice John Roberts—an architect of the judicial attack on voting rights—dissented, alongside the three liberals. The court’s order indicates that the five ultraconservative justices are preparing to dismantle the VRA’s guarantee against gerrymanders that dilute the voting strength of Black Americans. Indeed, by interceding so aggressively in Merrill, these far-right justices have effectively nullified this guarantee for the current redistricting cycle.

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has bulldozed several key provisions of the VRA. But until now, it had not yet repealed the law’s protections against the dilution of votes cast by racial minorities. This shield, contained in Section 2 and clarified by 1986’s Thornburg v. Gingles, requires a three-judge district court to determine whether a redistricting plan carves up minority communities to prevent them from electing the candidate of their choice. Although the Gingles test can be difficult to apply, the relevant factors here are straightforward: Due to racially polarized voting in the state, Black Alabamians cannot elect their preferred representatives unless they constitute a majority of their district".

They are not Justices. Just more right wing lawmakers.

[tower912]

The march toward Christian Nationalist Fascism continues.   

[forgetful]

They are not Justices. Just more right wing lawmakers.

In all honesty, this is how a civil war could come about. Decisions by decision this Supreme Court, that was constructed in part by legislatures violating their sworn duties to pack the court, continue to erode any aspect of rule of law in this nation. SCOTUS is now quite obviously a political, and religious entity.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

You say you wish to not have racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism? You’re better than me I guess.

Lol

My life has improved immensely since I became a disciple of pakuni.  He is an amazing individual.   

[Pakuni]

My life has improved immensely since I became a disciple of pakuni.  He is an amazing individual.

QFT.

[CTWarrior]

Nobody does. Nor has anyone ever.

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW. 

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

I found this interesting .. Michigan has a simple way of amending their state Constitution.   Collect 425k signatures to get it on a ballot, then pass it.

A pro-choice group has 30k volunteers to collect those sigs by July 11th .. a very doable per volunteer amount.   

Michigan democrats have roughly swept all state-wide elections, from Gov to MI Supreme Court since 2018.  Throw in some pro-choice GOP voters and this amendment passes in November.

Somehow, they'll have to not let the people decide this!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-michigan-ballot-initiative/7722914001/

Having participated in these signature gatherings before, the math does not work out that easy. Bad signatures, different levels of commitment from circulators, round tabling, expired notaries, misnumbered pages are just a partial list of things that go wrong with these initiatives. The rule of thumb is you need to submit twice as many as the minimum required signatures to feel comfortable that you have enough valid signatures. But if successful, it's a tremendous accomplishment.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW.

Very reasonable

[muwarrior69]

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW.

Well said. The zealots on both sides of the issue now have the loudest voices. Like you I find the idea of abortion reprehensible, but we do live in a pluralistic society and over time cooler heads will come to a compromise most of us can live with. At some point the state must recognize as you say after a reasonable range the rights of the unborn as a person must be granted equal protection under the 14th amendment. That does not mean the rights of the mother will be taken away, just that both the unborn and the mother have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

[jficke13]

Well said. The zealots on both sides of the issue now have the loudest voices. Like you I find the idea of abortion reprehensible, but we do live in a pluralistic society and over time cooler heads will come to a compromise most of us can live with. At some point the state must recognize as you say after a reasonable range the rights of the unborn as a person must be granted equal protection under the 14th amendment. That does not mean the rights of the mother will be taken away, just that both the unborn and the mother have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

I do not think these two statements are reconcilable.

Setting aside the sense that I have from both this post and your general posting history that your perception of what "most of us can live with" is unlikely to be something those who do not agree with you are likely to be willing to "live with," I am extremely skeptical that "cooler heads will come to [any] compromise" on this issue. Nothing in the history of the past fifty years suggests to me that there is a compromise solution where abortion is accessible that the "prolife" community would accept. There has been a singular defining unity of purpose that has animated the organized "right" on this issue that suggests to me that when some state legislator rattles their saber about total abortion bans with no exclusions or a modern day fugitive slave act that reaches out to punish those who travel or aid travel to states where abortion is accessible that we ought to believe that is absolutely a goal and a possibility.

Also, I really don't think the "Grant embryos equal protection" crowd has really thought through the unintended consequences of doing so.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

Of course, there is the mother to consider.  Personally, I would never have a problem with an abortion in cases of incest, rape or if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, so I clearly don't think it is reprehensible in all situations.  So is it a problem to extend that to mothers who cannot care for the child, either due to their age, marital, mental or financial status?  Probably not.  Mothers who just don't want the child?  Probably.  But that is just me.  My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

So I have to juxtapose those two positions within myself. It is nearly impossible to expect to get agreement between people with differing strong opinions on the matter, because IMO both sides are right and wrong.

There is no solution that would satisfy everyone, but as usual a compromise is in order.  Since it is impossible to legally determine the specific reasons for an abortion in any individual situation in a reasonable amount of time, it seems to me that allowing abortions up to a certain range (it seems that somewhere between 12-20 weeks seems to be the number) is the right thing to do, and do whatever you have to do to keep it that way.

Frankly, as someone who values human life, I am also appalled by overturning laws that prevent carrying concealed weapons.

I am a centrist who leans more than a little to the right, FWIW. 

I am certainly not calling you out on this, but I think your post is exactly why this is such a difficult issue.

If abortion is "reprehensible," why should there be any exceptions for rape or incest? Why are you willing to make exceptions for women with financial issues? How are you going to "prove" had these issues and isn't someone who just doesn't want a baby?

This is why I agree with the original decision. Just leave it up to the mother during the first trimester. After that, the only exception is if the mother's life is at risk - same legal theory as self-defense.

And I think that is what most Americans believe on this issue.

[Pakuni]

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.  That doesn't make me some holier than thou a-hole.  (I may be for other reasons).

I think you have a very reasonable take overall, but to suggest there's no argument here is plainly wrong. There's a ton of argument here, and it's one of the reason we (as a country) have such conflicting views over abortion.
Even historically speaking, there's no  tradition of considering a fetus a human life. After all, we don't we hold funerals for miscarriages, for example. Why? We don't impose child support from the date of conception. Why?
And, of course, many honestly believe that until a fetus is viable, it's not a human life.
I think reasonable people can disagree in good faith here, but to claim there's no dispute one way or the other is not true.

My brother is a cop, and he tells me that the older cops say the Roe v Wade did a lot to lower crime, as unwanted children in poor families tend to be the most likely kind of person to turn to crime (I have no idea if data backs that up, but it seems reasonable).

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/