New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loss Leader said:
I don't necessarily agree. In my (non-religious) view, I am perfectly at ease with moral ambiguities. Abortion and murder may be on the same spectrum and somewhere on that spectrum is a line between what is acceptable and what is not. I have no idea where exactly that line is. But I don't think I need to know that in order to determine that abortion is definitely on the allowable isde and murder is definitely not.
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily saying that there's nothing ambiguous, just trying to point out the reasoning I think JoeMorgue meant.

The most common viewpoint (among non-religious) seems to be that the allowable line is about the capacity for pain and suffering (versus the rights of the woman to her own body).

The anti-abortion framing of abortion as murder is attempting to draw a moral conclusion that either devalues a woman's right to her body, or over-values the rights of the fetus (implying some special value to the fetus beyond it's capacities).

I think JoeMorgue's line was about the second option there, and was just trying to clarify that.
 
Hellbound said:
The most common viewpoint (among non-religious) seems to be that the allowable line is about the capacity for pain and suffering (versus the rights of the woman to her own body).
Click to expand...
"Quickening" used to be the common law standard. Bill Moyers wrote/quoted this authority:.

Even the definition of abortion was different. In early America, as in Europe, “What we would now identify as an early induced abortion was not called an ‘abortion’ at all,” writes Leslie Reagan in When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973. “If an early pregnancy ended, it had ‘slipp[ed] away,’or the menses had been ‘restored.’ At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view.”
Click to expand...
 
Minoosh said:
"Quickening" used to be the common law standard. Bill Moyers wrote/quoted this authority:.
Even the definition of abortion was different. In early America, as in Europe, “What we would now identify as an early induced abortion was not called an ‘abortion’ at all,”
Click to expand...

I saw the movie The Quickening. Trust me, it was an abortion.
 

Attachments

  • 220px-Highlander_II.jpg
    220px-Highlander_II.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 0
Barring some calamity, this guy's going to get confirmed, and probably with some red state Dem support. I don't think this is the hill to die on. We need to control the Senate in case something happens to RBG in the next two years.
 
Fudbucker said:
Barring some calamity, this guy's going to get confirmed, and probably with some red state Dem support. I don't think this is the hill to die on. We need to control the Senate in case something happens to RBG in the next two years.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of something Amy Chozick says in her account of the Clinton 2016 campaign, Chasing Hillary. The voting models used by the campaign made it clear that Clinton would win the election handily. Therefore, they decided to divert some of the campaign funds to down-ticket races, specifically to ensure that Democrats won not only the Presidency, but also the Senate.
 
theprestige said:
This reminds me of something Amy Chozick says in her account of the Clinton 2016 campaign, Chasing Hillary. The voting models used by the campaign made it clear that Clinton would win the election handily. Therefore, they decided to divert some of the campaign funds to down-ticket races, specifically to ensure that Democrats won not only the Presidency, but also the Senate.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it would remind you of that. Clinton was the favorite to win. The Senate Dems, on their own, cannot stop this nomination.
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't know why it would remind you of that. Clinton was the favorite to win. The Senate Dems, on their own, cannot stop this nomination.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms. Trump isn't particularly conservative, in my opinion. And GOP politicians aren't particularly conservative, either. As far as my political ideals are concerned, about the only thing the GOP has to offer is that they are sometimes not as bad as the Democrats. About the only consistently conservative thing about the GOP are their Supreme Court picks. So having Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branch is nice, even though it doesn't move my conservative needle much at all. But if it's a question of having SCOTUS picks or sending a message to Senate Republicans in the mid-terms, the choice seems obvious.

You say, "we need to control the Senate", and I say, "we sure do, but who do you mean, 'we', kemosabe?"
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms. Trump isn't particularly conservative, in my opinion. And GOP politicians aren't particularly conservative, either. As far as my political ideals are concerned, about the only thing the GOP has to offer is that they are sometimes not as bad as the Democrats. About the only consistently conservative thing about the GOP are their Supreme Court picks. So having Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branch is nice, even though it doesn't move my conservative needle much at all. But if it's a question of having SCOTUS picks or sending a message to Senate Republicans in the mid-terms, the choice seems obvious.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Trump wanted to punish women for having abortions. The GOP's views on women are like something out of the Handmaid's Tale.
 
theprestige said:
It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms.
Click to expand...

It is easy to believe you are leading the parade, when you are marching in the same direction the others want to go. George Will and Max Boot and the other never-Trumpers are going to learn that lesson.
 
Fudbucker said:
Are you kidding? Trump wanted to punish women for having abortions. The GOP's views on women are like something out of the Handmaid's Tale.
Click to expand...

The evangelical wing of the conservative movement are retarded asshats and I hope they all die in a fire. I don't consider their extremism to be rational or healthy, and it makes up no part of the conservative values that I hold. I also don't unquestioningly accept your characterization of those views. I mention this only to make it clear. I don't wish to debate your characterization here, nor anywhere else.

I also don't consider any of the "conservative" noises that come out of Trump's mouth to be sincere expressions of a conservative value system. The main advantage there is that the President doesn't have to be sincerely conservative, to nominate conservative justices. A Clinton White House would not have been sincerely conservative either (obviously), and it would also not even have the one advantage of tending to nominate conservative justices.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The evangelical wing of the conservative movement are retarded asshats and I hope they all die in a fire. I don't consider their extremism to be rational or healthy, and it makes up no part of the conservative values that I hold. I also don't unquestioningly accept your characterization of those views. I mention this only to make it clear. I don't wish to debate your characterization here, nor anywhere else.

I also don't consider any of the "conservative" noises that come out of Trump's mouth to be sincere expressions of a conservative value system. The main advantage there is that the President doesn't have to be sincerely conservative, to nominate conservative justices. A Clinton White House would not have been sincerely conservative either (obviously), and it would also not even have the one advantage of tending to nominate conservative justices.
Click to expand...

You sure do a lot of distancing yourself from conservatives.
 
I am curious what Americans think of their supreme court.
I read a couple of Scalia judgements that showed how he considered facts to be completely subservient to law. He was a disgusting human being.

Consider that it is completely non controversial to say that Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with the crime he is jailed for, and that the supreme court have denied him a hearing without comment.

What should we think of this court? It looks from the outside to be staffed by criminals, and that replacing one judge with another is irrelevant to its function.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm distancing myself from a stereotype you keep trying to force me into. Why not try to talk to me about what I actually think and believe?
Click to expand...

I tried. I asked you: knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for Trump? I got no reply. If you DID reply, my apologies.
 
Done and done.

Does this mean you're over trying to stereotype me as an evangelical extremist, or are you going lash out like this every time I don't answer one of your questions?
 
So, Trump's argument about abortion: He understand's women's concerns, but don't worry about me stacking the court with anti-abortionists, because it will take a long time for any court cases to actually reach the supreme court.

https://www.bustle.com/p/trump-says...future-has-women-feeling-so-concerned-9767823
"There’s also a very good chance there won’t be a vote...We’ll have to see what happens. A case has to get up there. It could be a long time before a case ever gets up there."

Problems with that argument:
- Trump himself has talked about banning abortion.
- There are already court cases being prepared which could lead to a quick challenge against abortion (I think it took ~3 years for a texas anti-abortion law to get challenged and then reach the supreme court, so assuming such a vote will either never happen or will take a long time is simply wrong.)
 
IMHO, the dems have really shot themselves in the foot with the hyperbole in the medium term anyway. Short term its probably great for getting turnout. In the long term it will probably be a wash but there will be a point where the worst predictions(not coincidentally the ones that get the most play) don't come true and folks will stop listening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom