Utopia Talk / Politics / Monday: Supreme Court impeachments

murder Member	Fri Jun 24 17:47:31 That's what would be happening if Nancy Pelosi was half as liberal as Republicans always claim she is. Alito Thomas Gorsuch Kavanaugh Coney Barrett They would all get impeached and get referred to the DOJ to be charged with lying to Congress. The Supreme Court would be expanded, and the House of Representatives would be expanded to several times its current size to eliminate the disproportionate weight that rural states have in the electoral college. Unfortunately Pelosi is a blue Republican, so none of that will happen.
obaminated Member	Fri Jun 24 17:50:00 Lol what? Are you arguing that people can't change their mind? And are you arguing that the Supreme Court should be expanded? And you want to limit the influence of people who vote differently than you. Lol.
murder Member	Fri Jun 24 18:00:17 "And are you arguing that the Supreme Court should be expanded?" Temporarily. Until the white Christian nationalists get removed. "And you want to limit the influence of people who vote differently than you." I want one person one vote. We don't have that now.
kargen Member	Fri Jun 24 18:11:02 Sure we all want one person one vote but Democrats seem compelled to make it difficult in catching people that vote more than once.
murder Member	Fri Jun 24 18:18:00 "Sure we all want one person one vote but Democrats seem compelled to make it difficult in catching people that vote more than once." That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the electoral college which currently allows the minority to elect the president.
kargen Member	Fri Jun 24 18:56:59 The electoral college doesn't prevent you from voting nor does it prevent your vote from counting. Congress is a two chamber entity that gives representation to the individual and to the state. The system keeps more of the country relevant. Without the electoral college presidential candidates would only concern themselves with four maybe five states and ignore all others. And you can't look at popular votes as meaningful in any way when that isn't how the president is determined. You are only assuming the popular vote would have remained unchanged. If the popular vote mattered for president voting habits would likely change.
murder Member	Fri Jun 24 19:02:54 "The electoral college doesn't prevent you from voting nor does it prevent your vote from counting." It prevents everyone's vote from counting equally.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Jun 24 19:10:09 Roe was "egregiously wrong" is in the opinion they just changed their minds to that? ...the justices who were only on the candidate list specifically by being pro-life... Kavanaugh & Gorsuch are liars ...& Thomas is a dick w/ huge ethics issues
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 24 20:18:36 Democrats are too busy trying to get Trump again.
Rugian Member	Fri Jun 24 20:23:10 Speaking of Trump... A massive and sincere thanks is due to the God Emperor for giving us a Supreme Court that finally respects its constitutional role and doesn't think its job is to force its preferred political policies on the country. Just imagine how different things would be today if Hillary had won instead. So thank you, Donald. You have saved America as we know it.
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 24 20:26:03 The electoral college protects the vulnerable, I thought democrats were all about that? Now Roe has always been debated. Probably the most debated ruling in US history. Was it settled law? Yes, in the sense that it was ruled on and had been established for a while. But this isnt the first time that precedent has been over turned. By 2020 it had been overturned 232 times. And again this has been a very debated topic. Again, Im pro abortion. I think Id prefer banning late term abortions and encourage contraception which Im fine to subsidize with my taxes.
Habebe Member	Fri Jun 24 20:27:23 Rugian cheesing while he rubs salt in the wound.
kargen Member	Fri Jun 24 22:55:01 Each vote counts as one within your state. Then after tallying your vote electorates are selected to represent the majority for your state. Your vote in action! And good news for you the decision today puts even more power in your hands as a voter as it is easier to affect change through voting at the state and local area.
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 25 02:06:28 Remember when right wing activists targeted liberal judges at their homes? Yeah me neither.
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 25 02:07:36 We have peacefully dealt with roe v wade. For decades. Liberals shit their pants in hours.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 02:21:19 Because roe v wade didn’t affect any conservative’s life at all. Pro life people could chose not to have abortions. Now in most red states women will not be able to have abortions in cases of rape and incest. It’s fucked up beyond words and obaminated and rugian have no understanding of it because they are just caricature that lack any sense of empathy or ration. All you have is, “lol, owned the libs.”
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 03:04:52 Dukhat, Well, the upside is that they have approved a abortion pill which makes it easier. The one thing that never made sense to me is thebmost anti abortion people are commonly against free birth control.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 25 04:20:43 Habebe: "The one thing that never made sense to me is thebmost anti abortion people are commonly against free birth control." The connection is obvious, and you are a patsy.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 04:51:00 Its hilarious to see Macron speak about "abortions is a fundamental right" but its also mostly banned after 14 weeks in France.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 04:59:25 Seb, Your a Trotskyite.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 05:31:08 To those of you who complain the founding fathers couldn't anticipate semi automatic rifles.... Do you think the Burger court could have imagined women bragging with t-shirts how they have had over 20 abortions?
Seb Member	Sat Jun 25 08:53:50 Except it isn't mostly banned after 14 weeks in France. It is legal on demand to 14 weeks, and abortion is legal up to term provided two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 25 08:56:28 "bragging with t-shirts how they have had over 20 abortions?" They wouldn't imagine it because they wouldn't have imagined t-shirt slogans. But in so far as they didn't have abortion laws then, and it was actually legal in common law at the time and a practice known to happen, I don't think they would have batted an eyelid given they were pro free speech. They would have just thought it vulgar.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 18:51:39 So its banned with special permission. How is that different from what I said?
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 04:40:35 The bit where it isn't banned. I.e. "driving is banned in the US except if you get a driving license".
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 04:53:45 Semantics.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 06:19:34 Or you're just flat out wrong.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 07:35:01 Habebe: Sure, sure, it's just semantics - its banned except in so far as it is entirely permitted provided necessary conditions are met.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 11:36:55 i.e. "mostly banned"
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 12:37:07 Yeah. Driving is banned in the US.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 26 14:31:55 Imagine living in a country where a Supreme Court Justice gets impeached for voting a way that differs from the majority party. This is literally what murder wants. What a stupid cunt.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 15:32:23 Driving is comparable to pre-14th week abortion in France. It is not comparable to post-14th week France under the paradigm you stated.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 15:33:49 Forwyn: Really? You can just drive on demand in the US without passing a driving test?
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 15:37:55 The test is trivial. It is not provided under a strict set of exceptions. Anyone can walk in and request one. You don't need a doctor's note.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 15:39:39 Yeah so, available under conditions, not on request as a right (to healthcare)
Pillz Member	Sun Jun 26 16:36:59 ITT murder loses is completely Lol
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 18:04:21 Habebe: Re founding fathers, Ben Franklin added a recipe for medicines and abortion procedure to his adaptation of "The Instructor" published in 1748. So not only was abortion a normal part of American culture at the time (contrary to the ramblings of these so called judges the republicans have chosen to appoint to enact their policy) it was something that even your founding fathers clearly had no objection to.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 26 20:12:27 Lol what? Seb that is the dumbest statement you've ever made.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 20:20:26 Obam The founding fathers believed in the sanctity of self and all rights derived from it. Of course they thought that no human could be forced to carry within itself anything until quickening granted the collection of cells limited personhood. Abandoning the sanctity of self demolishes the philosophical logic on which many other things stand. It turns your constitution from philosophy to dogma. Hence my asking if jesus is your personal savior to denote if you have left the west or not.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 20:34:47 Seb, So what your really saying is that its no different than in than in the US? It's banned in certain areas, unless you do some extra shit. Where did I say nthe founding fathers were against abortion? They were also pro gun ownership, whats your point?
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 20:57:04 Seb criticizes me for allegedly using talking points, and then posts some random trivia factoid that he's surely only aware of because he read it in Mary Sue or The Guardian. The lack of self-awareness is absolutely painful.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 21:18:03 Its not a random talking point. It is a demonstration that the founding fathers thought to constitution represented a coherent philosophy and not religious dogma. The USSC removed the philosophical lynchpin by deciding that the sanctity of self is optional. When it falls, the rest of the rights are held up only by religious dogma. Guns are no longer a right, they are a cult fetish.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 21:33:44 "The USSC removed the philosophical lynchpin by deciding that the sanctity of self is optional. When it falls, the rest of the rights are held up only by religious dogma." If holding up the FFs as the guide, they clearly left this to the states. Abortions clearly happened back then. Abortion restrictions varied in colonies, so it wasnt as if they were unaware it would be a legal issue, clearly it wasn't a national concern. Again, Id be fine with either states handling it or a compromise of a national 12-15 weeks, with mail order pills, it doesn't seem to be a major issue. People just like excuses to get pissed off.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 21:51:03 That of course is wrong. Abortions until quickening were fine. Restrictions were introduced with the victorian era. It is not a major issue to you because you think of the constitution as dogma, not philosophy. In that, you differ from the founding fathers.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 21:53:19 No rights make sense without the retaining the integrity of self as a founding principle. Guns? Why? They aint protecting anything since the integrity of self no longer applies. All you have left is drrr, guns are gud halleluja.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 21:56:27 Jergul, In British colonies yes, Spanish and Portuguese colonies did not allow it. French as I understand banned it, but it wasn't enforced much. What part of this makes you think I see the constitution as as dogma?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 22:00:55 The founding fathers were not from the spanish and portugese colonies. They based the constitution on the sanctity of self as the lynchpin philosophical principle. You see it as dogma if you do not get that the USSC just ruled the integrity of self is optional and that this changes everything. It changed the constitution from philosophy to dogma in one fell swoop.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 22:01:38 Property as an extention of self? Who cares? The self no longer matters.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:02:28 Why guns/arms? They have a specific amendment legally speaking. Again these can all be changed via a legal process.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:06:00 "The founding fathers were not from the spanish and portugese colonies." Surely they were aware of them. The rights of self are not unlimited. Are you furious at Norway's restrictions? The EU nations?
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:07:30 In practice we agree. As a matter of law it makes no sense to allow unlimited abortion but restrict narcotics.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:13:31 It doesn't mean that much to me because in practice you can still get a morning after pill and now even an abortion pill even in territories that ban and or severely limit abortions. Its Probably more difficult in Ireland.But where is the outrage?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 26 22:18:08 The integrity of self subject to the discipline of a timely decision as as collection of cells develop towards personhood is fine in principle and in pragmatism. The USSC did not rule as it could have on a abortion widow. It decided instead that the integrity of self was an indifferent constitutional concern. The articles and ammendments are extentions of the integrity of self that may not have been philosophically obvious at the time of writing.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:35:16 http://www...urning-roe-v-wade-pdf-00038117 If anyone was curious of the actual text, 213 pages....im not reading all of that. Anyway we will see by next spring the practical realities as laws change and such how things play out.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:52:43 http://www...ed-abortion-pills-2022-6%3famp Anyway, in practical use, mifepristone already accounts fornthe majority of US abortions and can be mail order. It works up to 11 weeks, so again, not very different from Europe which is usually around 12 weeks, some more, some less. So again, not a big deal.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 23:04:41 Is jergul arguing that if Georgia had instituted an abortion ban that the FFs would have sent Washington in with his Whiskey army to stop it? lol
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 23:19:51 Im not sure how accurate he is that states can't ban an FDA approved drug though. But in practical terms they wont be able to stop it.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 01:06:22 I am arguing that during the age of reason, empirist inspired western thinkers would think it inconcievable to institute an abortion ban as that would destroy the philosophical underpinnings of the US constitution. Everything in it is derived from the sanctity of self.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:17:35 And what Im saying is that considering they knew of abortion restrictions and bans, if they felt so compelled they would have mentioned it. Im not saying they were anti abortion, but it was not seen as a right. The sanctity of self clearly has limits. Roe if they had also legalized all narcotics would have more standing. But they didnt do that, they chose to only go after abortion. If there was no limit you would have been able to buy heroin from your doctor. Again, Id be ok if that was allowed. Im merely arguing its not, its legally up to the states.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:19:42 For that matter you would also be allowed to choose anyone you want to kill your fetus and sell you heroin. If the sanctity of self was so unlimited.You shouldn't be restricted to only sanctioned practioners.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:28:10 Mind you that Casey basically overturned Roe and replaced it with the 14th. Probably because Roe was bad law, like a certain Senator Biden pointed out years ago.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 01:31:09 It was a self-evident truth within that philosophical framework. More iffy things like gun access had their own articles. The electoral college was designed to protect the US from ignoramuses undermining the philosophical framework. The founding fathers failed in imagining a STEM future detached from a philosophical anchor. So an idiocracy evolved and with that followed a slip back into religious dogma. Welcome to 1619.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 01:32:05 You did not remove roe. You removed the sanctity of self.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 01:36:02 "John Locke's theory of natural rights: "All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." The constitution was a coherent expression of a specific philosophy. It is that no longer. Now it is just dogma.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:48:57 Ok drama queen.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:50:09 Considering abortion has been banned since atleast 1820s in many places, it barely existed in the way you say it was.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:53:28 Doctors used to regularly "maintain" addicts. Then they legally couldn't. How is this different? Why didn't the constitution become dogma to you the day they started anti drug laws?
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 01:57:21 Or prostitution for that matter.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 02:03:16 So your argument is that you actually have followed religious dogma with fetish articles for a while now and nothing has really changed. Sure. I eagerly await the next Fatwa from your USSC.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 02:27:34 My question is why is this right so much more important to you than the right to sell your body? My argument is that if this extreme level of privacy rights protect killing fetuses, why isnt it applied to other controversial matters? Why only Abortion?
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 02:29:34 I think it would be great to have such a right. I just disagree that its protected in the USC. It clearly seems to be a states issue. Which is why I oppose federal drug laws.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:44:40 Habebe: "Where did I say nthe founding fathers were against abortion?" Sat Jun 25 05:31:08 "It's banned in certain areas, unless you do some extra shit." No, in all European countries it's considered a legal right defacto or de jure, constrained in certain circumstances once the question of the fetus can start to be considered an interested party. That's fundamentally different to the US where you do not consider the woman to have rights, and allow the state to arbitrarily impose constraints on her freedom.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:50:40 Rugian: It's directly relevant in two ways. Firstly directly in this thread where habebe likened old courts in the founding periods inability to anticipate a supposed fashion for abortion (habebe misunderstands the role of advocacy for normalisation of a practice with turning it into a pastime) to the inability to anticipate automatic weaponry as a reason to ignore the historical situation. My point in raising Franklin here is that they wouldn't really have thought repeated abortion a problem - they didn't regard abortion as a problem at the time. The regarded it as normal. Normal enough for Ben Franklin to actively promote it in his book. Secondly it is relevant because a great part of the logic on the court ruling was on the basis that abortion is alien to American tradition when we, it isn't at all.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:53:27 "No, in all European countries it's considered a legal right defacto or de jure," This blatantly false. I dont think you know what a right is. Also are you under the impression that Warren Burger was a founding father? Please re read the post.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:04:13 Habebe: "And what Im saying is that considering they knew of abortion restrictions and bans, if they felt so compelled they would have mentioned it." This is a total inversion of the Whig tradition of liberty that inspired the founding fathers. They absolutely would not have enumerated every single thing that they could conceive of as being banned. The whole point of the 11th and 12th articles in the bill of rights (9th and 10th amendment) is to negate sush stupid arguments. The 14th has been vehicle where the court has traditionally determined if an activity in question is a right or not. But the idea you need to find the right enumerated in the bill of rights is a total fiction.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:09:45 Seb, "They absolutely would not have enumerated every single thing that they could conceive of as being banned." Are you familiar with the tenth amendment?I know you mentioned it, have you read and understood it?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:10:37 Habebe: I thought you were referring to burgher courts (i.e. late medieval lay courts of which jurisprudence Alito et all dismiss). I understand you mean the court in 1960s. I don't think their anticipation of t-shirt slogans makes a difference, they approached the issue as a balancing of rights via trimester freewheel framework, not something intrinsically wrong that was allowed in exception and only for morally acceptable reasons.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:14:36 Habebe: 10th amendment. I am, I literally mentioned it in the post, as an example of how wrong you are in inferring that the absence of a specifically enumerated protection in the constitution lets you infer they didn't consider it something people has the freedom to do to their own bodies.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:15:58 Habebe: "This blatantly false" - nope. Comes under rights to access healthcare.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:18:57 Seb, My general point being that at the time it was seen as a last resort without many other luxuries as we now have. For starters it is legal to abort upnit 11 weeks in all US territory via a prescription. This may change, there is a debate over FDA approved meds and state authority.Many others were touched upon during last year's hearing of this case, Id reccomend you watch the highlights. Abortion to many is now commonplace , having multiple a year. Clearly a different situation.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:26:14 Habebe: "This blatantly false" - nope. Comes under rights to access healthcare. Seb, Malta has a stricter abortion stance than anywhere in the US. Again, we will see how the laws adjust in the next few months but even now a woman who miscarried a few days ago had to be removed from the country to get an abortion.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Mon Jun 27 06:31:51 Dude stop trying to cherry pick random small islands in europe to distract from repub states forcing women to have a rapists or uncles baby
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Mon Jun 27 06:33:07 "Malta has a population of 515,000"
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:39:40 And yet it is an EU nation.Thus the EU does not have a unified precedent. Germany, the single largest nation also bans abortion on demand.They have limited penalties for into 12 weeks. Which again 12-14 weeks is the standard in the EU. Most US states are far more lenient. Yes some southern states have near abortion bans.6 weeks and such. Except via prescription which is 11 weeks nationwide. Prescription abortion is the primary form of abortion in the US.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 06:46:00 "My question is why is this right so much more important to you than the right to sell your body?" The integrity of self is literally compromised by an unwanted featus. There are no other rights without integrity of self because all other rights are derived from it. The right to prostitution is an extention of self in the same manner property is. Derived from the integrity of self, but as an appendage. According to Empirist logic.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:52:40 And I'm not even counting Poland and Italy which are basically by US terms very similar to very red states in regards to abortion.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 07:01:27 Habebe: Oh yes, Malta. There are plenty of US states with equally harsh proposed laws that have been waiting this decision.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:09:09 Anywhere in the US women can abort up to 11 weeks via prescription. Most of the EU is innthe 12-14 range. Most US women can still get late term abortions on demand. My point is its absurd to suggest that the EU is more lenient on abortion and the US is borderline banning it. The reality is each state will be different.Many US states will be far more lenient than any EU state, CA almost allowed infanticide for like 2 week olds. It was not law, but the reason it almost read that way was just how far they wanted to push it. Again no western EU nation has late term on demand abortion. Maybe some ofnthe ex commie ones.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 07:12:37 habebe You now longer have a coherent philosophy underpinning your constitution. You have a Sharia Court making rulings on dogmatic fetishes. There are two things you should do: 1. Recognize you constitution had a philosophical idea behind it. 2. Read Locke, Hume, Berkely to learn what that idea was.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:18:38 Jergul, By that theory you suggest that for most of US history we have been this way. Have you atleast skimmed the majority opinion?
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:19:58 I will say, I cant remember the left being this pissed since Trump won.Like a total short circuit.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:21:53 I specifically mentioned prostitution because of your (Jergul) religious outlier thoughts on the subject.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 07:34:21 I have read the ruling. 10 minutes I will never get back You have a Fatwa Court ruling on fetishes and dogma that perks its interest. But hell, since you never understood there was a philosophy behind the constitution, then I suppose it has always been just fetishes and dogma to you. I am not mad. I am just disappointed. We used to respect America.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:42:32 Jergul with his words of the week and deflection arguments.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 27 07:47:23 Or, you could read Locke. I can only lead a horse to water.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 08:09:15 Habebe: "Again no western EU nation has late term on demand abortion. Maybe some ofnthe ex commie ones." Who claims it does? The reason there are such limits is because nearly everywhere else agrees (and has generally agreed throughout western history) with the decision the rabble that call themselves a court said was "egregiously" wrong - it's a conflict in fundamental rights that kicks in at some point in a pregnancy when a fetus starts to acquire some form of protection as a person or potential person. Only at that point can it be reasonable to impose limits on the freedom and rights of the mother. Your court did not confer rights on the fetus. It simply stripped rights from the pregnant woman; thus allowing individual states to decide to regulate it how they like because the woman no longer has rights over her body. It's profoundly reactionary position. And you can't see it because you basically have no concept of how rights work as part of an overarching philosphical framework and system of law. You can only see the policy position. This is why you say fucking stupid things like "Abortion is banned in France after 14 weeks" when the actual position is very different.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 08:11:06 And jergul is right, you should read locke. You can't understand much about the US constitution without reading at the very least the second treatise and the history around that period and the need to put rights laws outside of executive power and into the realm of abstract principles.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 08:42:26 "Your court did not confer rights on the fetus. It simply stripped rights from the pregnant woman" The court, apparently like EU courts have decided its up to the states. But for some reason that upsets you more because your tribe lost.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: