Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

[Trebuchet]

It should be. The question is, how do you actually accomplish that.

If you give the tack of selecting judges over to some non-elected group to make the pic, then people will suggest that you're being run by a bunch of un-elected people.

The U.S. HAD a good method of selecting judges... nominated by the president but had to be approved by 2/3rds in the senate... so even if there was some partisanship, you couldn't get a nominee through without at least some support from the opposing party. But Moscow Mitch blew that up... first by obstructing Obama, then by eliminating the 2/3rds requirement.

Perhaps what is needed is a constitutional amendment (if that could ever get through) restoring the 2/3rds requirement, and limiting the amount of obstruction that the Senate can apply.

Have nits, must pick.
First, there's no supermajority requirement for approving an appointment. 50 votes plus the Veep will do it.
The supermajority, which is 60 votes, not 2/3, applies to cutting off debate, ending a filibuster. This isn't a constitutional requirement, just a Senate rule. Amending the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to cut off debate, what is known as "The Nuclear Option" is something that used to be unthinkable but has now become routine.
And, IIRC, it was the Dems who first used it.

IMO no Supreme Court justices will ever be appointed if they are nominated by the Democratic Party and the Senate is GOP held.

If there is a prospect of the GOP losing control of the Senate, I can also see them changing the rules so that a super-majority is required to secure an appointment, they can always revert to the original rules in the event that they don't lose their majority.

Not just SCOTUS. Moscow Mitch will refuse to confirm any Federal Judges at all.

 

[Segnosaur]

The U.S. HAD a good method of selecting judges... nominated by the president but had to be approved by 2/3rds in the senate... so even if there was some partisanship, you couldn't get a nominee through without at least some support from the opposing party. But Moscow Mitch blew that up... first by obstructing Obama, then by eliminating the 2/3rds requirement.

Perhaps what is needed is a constitutional amendment (if that could ever get through) restoring the 2/3rds requirement, and limiting the amount of obstruction that the Senate can apply.

Have nits, must pick.
First, there's no supermajority requirement for approving an appointment. 50 votes plus the Veep will do it.
The supermajority, which is 60 votes, not 2/3, applies to cutting off debate, ending a filibuster. This isn't a constitutional requirement, just a Senate rule. Amending the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to cut off debate, what is known as "The Nuclear Option" is something that used to be unthinkable but has now become routine.

Yes, I recognize that much of this was tied up in the arcane rules of the senate.

That's why I suggested an actual constitutional amendment... so things don't depend on senate rules that can be easily modified.

And, IIRC, it was the Dems who first used it.

Yes, Obama did change the rules to get lower court judges confirmed. But, as I pointed out, Moscow Mitch was obstructing everything... so, options were: invoke the nuclear option to at least get some judges appointed, or leave dozens/hundreds of empty seats.

That's why I suggested that the constitutional amendment that requires a super-majority also involves rules to prevent obstruction.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of "The president nominates a judge, the Senate must vote on the judge within 3 months or he gets in anyways. 2/3rds majority (or 60% majority) is required to confirm. A party only has a limited number of rejections they can make in a term (to prevent a party from just rejecting everyone)."

I am sure there are probably loopholes. But, its better than the current situation, which has allowed Drunky McRapeface to take a position on the supreme court.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yes, I recognize that much of this was tied up in the arcane rules of the senate.

That's why I suggested an actual constitutional amendment... so things don't depend on senate rules that can be easily modified.

Yes, Obama did change the rules to get lower court judges confirmed. But, as I pointed out, Moscow Mitch was obstructing everything... so, options were: invoke the nuclear option to at least get some judges appointed, or leave dozens/hundreds of empty seats.

That's why I suggested that the constitutional amendment that requires a super-majority also involves rules to prevent obstruction.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of "The president nominates a judge, the Senate must vote on the judge within 3 months or he gets in anyways. 2/3rds majority (or 60% majority) is required to confirm. A party only has a limited number of rejections they can make in a term (to prevent a party from just rejecting everyone)."

I am sure there are probably loopholes. But, its better than the current situation, which has allowed Drunky McRapeface to take a position on the supreme court.

I'm liking the hilighted part.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's why I suggested that the constitutional amendment that requires a super-majority also involves rules to prevent obstruction.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of "The president nominates a judge, the Senate must vote on the judge within 3 months or he gets in anyways. 2/3rds majority (or 60% majority) is required to confirm. A party only has a limited number of rejections they can make in a term (to prevent a party from just rejecting everyone)."

I'm liking the hilighted part.

Yes, but there would still be a loophole... Moscow Mitch could bring forward votes only to have republicans reject them out of hand. There would still have to be some mechanism to ensure rejections were done for valid reasons. (Hens my suggestion of a limited number of rejections).

Still, it would be better than the current situation where Moscow Mitch can kill nominations without even bringing them to a vote.

 

[Bogative]

Yaaaaay!!! Louisiana can get back to murdering thousands of black babies every year without interruption.

8,144 abortions occurred in 2019.
African-American women accounted for 63% of abortions performed in 2019.


Louisiana abortion statistics

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Oh no now less-than-wealthy women who get pregnant can't be punished by having to carry to term, even if the pregnancy fails!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh no now less-than-wealthy women who get pregnant can't be punished by having to carry to term, even if the pregnancy fails!

Why would you construe that as a punishment? It is a biological process. Are we punished because we will likely all defecate today?

How do we determine which normal processes are punishments?

 

[Belz...]

Yaaaaay!!! Louisiana can get back to murdering thousands of black babies every year without interruption.

You know, after years of this stuff, one could not believe sincerely that you are not aware that foetuses are not babies. You are, therefore, lying.

Since it's so obvious, why do it?

Do you believe that foetuses gain souls at conception?

 

[Segnosaur]

Why would you construe that as a punishment?

Ummm... Because pregnancy is disruptive to a woman's life (even if she does not keep the child after birth)? There are financial costs, pain, possibly employment problems, etc. Not to mention a greater risk of death during pregnancy/birth compared to having an abortion.

It is a biological process. Are we punished because we will likely all defecate today?

It (pregnancy) is a biological process for which there is an easy alternative in the civilized world.

Catching a disease is also a biological process... But nobody is complaining when we give antibiotics.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yaaaaay!!! Louisiana can get back to murdering thousands of black babies every year without interruption.

Your attempt to whitewash an anti-woman agenda by pretending...

A) It's racist
B) You'd actually care if it was

... is just adorable.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ummm... Because pregnancy is disruptive to a woman's life (even if she does not keep the child after birth)? There are financial costs, pain, possibly employment problems, etc. Not to mention a greater risk of death during pregnancy/birth compared to having an abortion.

It (pregnancy) is a biological process for which there is an easy alternative in the civilized world.

Catching a disease is also a biological process... But nobody is complaining when we give antibiotics.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

We were not talking about "complaining". If someone said complaining, I wouldn't have bothered. They used the word punishment. I wouldn't view a disease running it's course as punishment, either. Natural cause of death is an element of life.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I was also responding to someone who implied women having a modicum of control over their biological processes was a racial genocide, but sarcasm doesn't convey well over text I guess.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why would you construe that as a punishment? It is a biological process. Are we punished because we will likely all defecate today?

How do we determine which normal processes are punishments?

Spoken like a man who has never faced having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

No one has ever told you that you couldn't take a crap for nine months so stop comparing carrying a child and giving birth to defecating.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Spoken like a man who has never faced having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

No one has ever told you that you couldn't take a crap for nine months so stop comparing carrying a child and giving birth to defecating.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695f02cb254e86b.jpg[/qimg]

What you are doing is called special pleading. That isn't actually a case for why it is some exceptional biological process that makes it a punishment but not others.

 

[Armitage72]

You know, after years of this stuff, one could not believe sincerely that you are not aware that foetuses are not babies. You are, therefore, lying.

Since it's so obvious, why do it?

Do you believe that foetuses gain souls at conception?

There was a meme I saw online recently.
Pregnant women didn't receive the coronavirus stimulus bonus for having a child, so all it took for Republicans to admit that a fetus isn't a child was needing to open their wallets.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There was a meme I saw online recently.
Pregnant women didn't receive the coronavirus stimulus bonus for having a child, so all it took for Republicans to admit that a fetus isn't a child was needing to open their wallets.

Just because it possesses a soul doesnt mean the mother should receive a tax credit.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ummm... Because pregnancy is disruptive to a woman's life (even if she does not keep the child after birth)? There are financial costs, pain, possibly employment problems, etc. Not to mention a greater risk of death during pregnancy/birth compared to having an abortion.

It (pregnancy) is a biological process for which there is an easy alternative in the civilized world.

Catching a disease is also a biological process... But nobody is complaining when we give antibiotics.

We were not talking about "complaining". If someone said complaining, I wouldn't have bothered. They used the word punishment. I wouldn't view a disease running it's course as punishment, either. Natural cause of death is an element of life.

Actually if someone had a disease that could easily be cured through some simple medical treatment, and somebody decided not to provide that treatment because they thought the sufferer was "sinful", then that would be punishment.

For example, if you chose to withhold antibiotics from someone suffering from bacterial pneumonia just because you think the person was somehow 'bad' for getting pneumonia, then you would be punishing them because the medical condition can easily be handled.

Same with pregnancy and abortion... if a person does not want to be pregnant, there is a very simple medical treatment that deals with it. Its fast, and has less health risks than carrying it to term. But anti-abortionists are attempting to override their particular backwards beliefs over those of the woman. They are in effect punishing her.

 

[BobTheCoward]

For example, if you chose to withhold antibiotics from someone suffering from bacterial pneumonia just because you think the person was somehow 'bad' for getting pneumonia, then you would be punishing them because the medical condition can easily be handled.

So, every single item I withhold from everybody that I find objectionable is punishment?

Separately, this isn't a case of imposing because of some, "sinful act".

 

[PhantomWolf]

What you are doing is called special pleading. That isn't actually a case for why it is some exceptional biological process that makes it a punishment but not others.

If a person was prevented from getting treatment for lung cancer because they had been a smoker by politicians that were anti-smoking, all on the basis that Lung Cancer is a biological process, would you insist that wasn't a punishment too?

 

[BobTheCoward]

If a person was prevented from getting treatment for lung cancer because they had been a smoker by politicians that were anti-smoking, all on the basis that Lung Cancer is a biological process, would you insist that wasn't a punishment too?

This doesn't appear to be a situation where they are discriminating on the cause of cancer. This would be banning the treatment all together.

While it would be a rights violation, it doesn't appear to be punishment.