Stop posting drivel. Simple fact is that they're only 'babies' if, like you, someone believes in magic. Without that they're nothing more than a mass of biological tissue, and thus it's up to person it resides within to do with it as it sees fit.

Besides, if you and the rest of the right are really that opposed to women having abortions then here's a simple solution:




But you won't, so here we are.

You did, thanks, and I asked followup questions.

Why do you take the part you placed in bold as trolling? Might need to start a separate thread if you want to get into church collections because I have quite a lot to say.

I didn't bash him; I said it was good that he did that. I also asked if he did anything more directly. Even if I did what you accuse me of doing, how and why does that make me a pos? Damn near every church goer I know gives at least 10% of their income to their church.

If you want to force women that are not capable of being suitable parents to give birth and harbor the burden of raising a child in their situations and expect society as a whole to be content with bad parents raising more children, then you should take on a burden commensurate to what you expect of others, no?

This is really interested if anyone has the time.

It was quite good. Interesting to hear how his perspective has changed over the years.

Not surpised you're asking this, considering you are also into gay people shouldn't be allowed to...


How about
Black people shouldn't be allowed to...
Bald people shouldn't be allowed to....
Christians shouldn't be allowed to....
Fat people shouldn't be allowed to...
Do you see what happens when you isolate groups?

I've been posting drivel for years now; why stop now?

I don't believe in "magic."

According to science, that "mass of biological tissue" is a human life. That is not debatable at this point. What is debatable is whether or not that human life ought to be protected by law.

Babies are wonderful! I was one once, and so were you. (Okay, you probably already knew that. ) Too bad the babies who were slaughtered in the womb can't participate in the discussion and share their side of the story.

I shan't be responding any more to troll posts like the above.

drive while intoxicated!


drive while intoxicated!

drive while intoxicated!

drive while intoxicated!

drive while intoxicated!

I give up, what?

You are welcome. This thread isn't about me, so I see no point in this derail in this particular thread.

Because you said that my church gives "a sliver to the underserved community." [emphasis added] Since you have no clue how large my church is or how much we give to the community, that's just trolling.

Start a thread, and maybe I'll participate.

Your analysis is certainly cynical, but it would explain why this right (at the federal level) has rested merely on a judicial opinion for half a century.

But with a current supreme court majority hand-picked using the nuclear option and simple majority to deliver very specific verdicts, I'd question how viable such efforts could be.

Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing, strategy isn't everything in this world. The GOP made the supreme court a simple majority battleground, which was a rather horrible idea. But it does mean that these fights are now taking place in the political gutter and the Democrats should realize that. Trying to salvage the US supreme court as a trusted institution is a noble idea, but appointment by simple majority has made it politicized to the point where this is probably naive. It could be rebuilt, but that will take decades of hard work and likely needs a generational shift as well.

I should add that the latter portion of my post isn't a result of this one verdict. I wrote similar opinions back when the nuclear option was used for the supreme court (and I am fully aware the Democrats used it for federal judge-positions before this). I still think electing supreme court judges by simple majority is going to be looked at as one of the gravest mistakes in modern US political history.

Like most conspiracy-lite theories, Cuepee's theory is more provocative than the actual truth. Democrats haven't pushed federal abortion legislation for several obvious reasons. First, Democrats have never had the votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster. (Despite what many in this forum suggest, getting rid of the filibuster has never been a trivial decision.) Second, as the endless internecine fighting in the party shows, Congressional Democrats don't speak with one voice. Codifying a constitutional right with federal legislation might be a good move for 90% of Congressional Democrats. But it's probably a fraught move for 10% of Congressional Democrats. Third, there is a huge difference between spending political capital to codify (and potentially expand on) an existing constitutional right and scuttling abortion legislation that is being handed to you on a silver platter.

Are you suggesting the current Court would deem federal abortion legislation to be unconstitutional? On what basis? I don't see how that would be possible.

I am not sure what sort of structural reform you are proposing. Judges either must be elected directly or appointed. If they are elected directly, then they obviously are the product of a simple majority. (Unsurprisingly, in states where state judges are elected directly, they are perceived to be highly political.) That doesn't seem to be the solution.

So I assume that you are proposing some sort of modification to the appointment process. You could eliminate the requirement of Senate approval, but that just hands power from the Senate to the president (or to whoever is charged with making the appointments). I'm not sure that solves what you perceive to the problem. In the alternative, appointments to the SCOTUS could require approval by some sort of supermajority rather than a bare majority. In theory, that would give the WH an incentive to nominate centrist candidates that would be acceptable to at least some segment of the opposition party. But I'm skeptical about whether it would work that way in practice. If there were an immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court, is there anyone Biden could nominate who would receive the required supermajority? I'm skeptical.

Some sort of term limit on justices might reduce the consequences of nominations, which might in turn reduce some of the friction in the confirmation process.

Cute.

You "forgot" to add the question mark at the end of that sentence. If you're going to manually quote me, please do so accurately.

That said, absent of other information you refuse to provide, I'm going to make general assumptions that are true for nearly every church, you know, like your church doesn't pay taxes. But yes, your church could be rare and refuse to apply for 501(c)(3) status because they want to pay taxes.



Maybe - but why not participate here?

If you want to force women that are not capable of being suitable parents to give birth and harbor the burden of raising a child in their situations and expect society as a whole to be content with bad parents raising more children, then you should take on a burden commensurate to what you expect of others. Fair?

It's illegal to drive while intoxicated. Laws apply to everyone, not just one demographic. Try his exercise again with that in mind. For example:

"Christians shouldn't be allowed to _____"

"Get arrested for driving while intoxicated."

They've had 50 years and I don't see much evidence of the fight having even been put up. Cuepee's take is perhaps overly cynical, but at the same time your description here doesn't really describe a political party which has taken this fight on.

I would not expect integrity from a politicized court, and a court where judges are appointed by simple majority will inevitably be just that.

The leaked opinion also uses language that suggests abortion was historically always a crime in the US and an issue expanded on by states, which (if we ignore the rather blatant lie) to a layman like me suggests a very broad argument that could be used to take on future federal efforts to ensure right to abortion.

Appointing the supreme court by simple majority is a bad solution, because it creates a political prisoner's dilemma when appointing supreme court justices. Do you use your majority for maximum political impact or do you do it with integrity and trust the opposition to do the same when they get the majority.

Super-majority requirements is not really about appointing "centrists". There are plenty of people who are too brilliant to pass, even if they have legal leanings. Such people won't be puppets, however.

I am against a mother being FORCED to raise a child. A mother should always have the option of having her child adopted.

A good friend of mine adopted a special-needs child.

Another good friend of mine was actually adopted when he was only several months old. He was himself a special-needs child.

Is it cynical or conspiratorial though?

Rococo how you do square Obama having the Power and votes to put in place National Abortion legislation with your position that Dem's have never had the votes and it being a CT to say they did?


What we see with the GOP is a multi decade strategy where they absolutely know the cost of pushing through their agenda may cost them votes in the Center and they act on their principles regardless. Filibuster gone... Parliamentarian fired... Obama denied SC seat... ACB stuffed thru at last second...

None of that matters to the GOP ultimately, more than grabbing power when they CANNOT be stopped and using it.

What you see with the Dem's ALWAYS is a calculus of 'how many votes will this cost us, if we act' and as long as the Dem's believe their base is locked in, then nothing else matters but that incremental gain. So Trump tax cuts stay ...because 'why cost yourself some center and center right and far right votes'. Parliamentarian and Filibuster become insurmountable blocks. Etc, etc.

The Dems only after decades of being pushed finally are sharing some power with the POC, whom they took for granted for decades, because they could. Even still they have zero desire to actually give any benefits to the voting block and if they can find a way to not deliver they will ALWAYS take it. Feeling that cote has no where else to go.

Obama and the Dem party did not act on RvW, as they felt they already had the Dem vote locked in. No more votes to gain by acting on it but they might lose some Right leaning votes if they acted. In the end they let that drive their decision. That pattern is CLEAR. As opposed to if you put Mitch in those same positions he will force the country to adopt his most partisan agenda and ram it down your throat, no matter the lack of popular support or what it may cost them in the next election.

The GOP will take decades to wait for any slight opening that will allow them to usurp power and break any rule to get their agenda thru. You can give the Dem's unobstructed power and all they will focus on is 'how many GOP votes will it cost versus what do we gain if we act for our base?' And because the Dem's run on a position their base has no where else to go, that means they feel they are the last ones they need to cater to when they have power.


Some think my view conspiratorial or cynical, but I think not recognizing the truth about the Dem's is very navie.

Sure you do. And you consistently seem to insist that those who don't believe in your magic book live by its nonsense.


And regardless of where you come down on such things, the actual reality is that abortion should be legal mostly as a practical matter. Much like prostitution, sports betting, drug use, and so on. The actions are going to happen whether they're legal or not, so it makes sense for them to be legal so that they can be properly regulated and managed. The pros far outweigh the cons for this and it's not even close.

Here's your EXACT quote:

Pretty obvious (at least to my simple little mind) that you were assuming that my church was giving a "sliver" to the underserved community, since you answered your own question with "that's good."


Start a new thread and maybe I participate. Or we can continue this derail in the Abortion Thread. This is the Supreme Court Thread.

I am not disputing that both sides have been happy enough at the federal level to fight proxy battles through court appointments rather than propose legislation. (You didn't see Republicans pushing for constitutional amendments either, for many of the same reasons.)

But it doesn't follow that Democrats as a party are uninterested in abortion legislation. At the state level, in states where supporting abortion legislation is not a politically fraught activity, you see what you would expect to see -- that is, Democrats supporting abortion legislation.

It isn't a question of integrity. I doubt that the conservatives on the Court would be able to write the opinion you describe in a way that would not have an undesirable cascading effect (even from the perspective of partisan Republicans) on other areas of constitutional jurisprudence.

I don't agree at all. Insider trading and selling weed also have a history of being federal crimes in the United States. No one has ever suggested that you could use that history to mount a constitutional challenges to federal legislation that decriminalized those activities. No federal court at any level has ever ruled that a state law ensuring access to abortion was unconstitutional because abortion had a history of being a crime in the United States. I would be surprised if any serious person has even had the audacity to make such a frivolous argument.


The question is whether a super-majority requirement would work in the current environment. Would Congressional Republicans object to the prospect of Biden being unable to get a nominee confirmed? If you think they would object, the only possible explanation is that they don't want to encourage Democrats to block appointments by a Republican president. But in fact, I don't think Republicans care about encouraging Democrats to observe norms. At this point, neither party trusts the other party to do anything other than obstruct to the nth degree.

To my argument above I think we need look no further that California Dem politicians as the exemplars of what I am saying.


I do think they are significantly better than GOP peers but when it comes to what they promise to win elections versus what they deliver when they have power, I think it is clear that an after election analysis will always be done, and the only things delivered will be the bare minimum they believe they have to keep power.

I don't think it is any more complex then that. Sure, from an ideals stand point the Cali Dem politicians may in fct believe much of the stuff they campaign on is needed and good, but post election the calculus switches to of 'we need the Dem base to show up and vote', to one of 'how do we not lose any corporate or center or center right' votes. That answer is to deliver as little as possible to keep those issue in play for the next election so the party does not have to move further left to find issues the next time.

Federally what does that look like. Well in 2022 MT and 2024 GE you will almost certainly see Dem Politicians arguing 'elect us and we will secure your voter rights (to POC) , ...we will secure your abortion rights, ...we will cut back the Trump tax cuts, ...we will reduce or eliminate student debt' ...'we will invest in a Green Agenda and a New Deal'.


Is there anyone who thinks I may be too cynical who DOES NOT think those will be amongst the major Dem planks in 2022 and 2024? ANYONE???

Planks that should not be lost on anyone that if Mitch was Obama, would have been rammed thru or that a Biden gov't will be running on in an election where they will be saying 'Elect us to deliver on those planks that the prior Dem gov't failed to deliver!!!!" Of course they will try and make it seem like it is the GOP who blocks them on these issues when it is the Dems' themselves.

Obama never had the votes required to overcome the filibuster.

That said, I don't know that we disagree as much as you might think. I agree that Republicans and Democrats engage in a political calculus when it comes to abortion legislation (or any other type of legislation). And I agree that Republicans and Democrats sometimes seem to be doing those political calculations in different ways.

Your statement that Democrats would sabotage abortion legislation if Republican defectors handed it to them on a silver platter overstates the case though. The political calculus for Democrats is different in the silver platter scenario than it is in the scenario where Democrats have little prospect of overcoming unified Republican opposition.

Great video.

I was not aware of how the Evangelicals went from being Pro Choice to their current anti abortion, anti gay stance as a result of seeing it as a tool to consolidate power and give the base something to focus on after becoming apathetic in losing the segregation battles. For the Catholics this was a moral issue but it was not generally for the Evangelicals.

Should not surprise me anymore but it still does.

Candidates in a general election always make aspirational promises about making the country more fair or whatever. But you are overstating things again. The Green New Deal was never part of Biden's platform. Eliminating all student debt was never part of his platform. Packing the court was never a part of his platform. And they won't be planks in his platform if he runs in 2024.

Biden probably will end up supporting the forgiveness of up to $10k in student debt, even though it would be tricky to defend the allocation if the government had a fixed amount of money to spend.

But you're in favor of a pregnant woman being FORCED to give birth, yes? Who will be adopting all these millions of unwanted kids per year?

I'd have no qualms with the idea of FORCING pregnant women to give birth if those who want to FORCE a pregnant woman to give birth make a commitment to never have kids of their own and only adopt and pay for all birthing costs.

Imagine a world if all right-wing Christians never procreated and only adopted kids that would have otherwise been brought up in shitty homes.

I placed a question mark there for clarification. If your church gives a sliver (common) or all of it (uncommon), both are good.

Will it surprise you when the Dem legislation re RvW fails and those who vote against say 'it was over broad'?

Will it surprise you when Susan Collins comes forward with much more narrow legislation that she and others in the GOP might support and the Dem party finds a reason not to support it or try and call a vote on it?