U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

[becca]

The senate is representative of the States we have a federal system and they have the right to confirm To the Supreme Court and the electoral college because small states were concerned they would be dominated by big states.
If everything was majority voted we would have never had a country to begin with because the small states would have never agreed.

Nowadays North Dakota doesn’t what to be governed by California and New York liberals. And it’s their fear especially with the courts.

There is a reason a lot of the power goes to the states so more progressive states can Inact progressive policies and more Conservative states can do what they want as well...

The President has to be someone who appeal accross the board if the Democrats Are having problem Winning the electoral college they need to look at why.

And Republicans need to look at why they lose minorities.

 

[Polaris]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US splits up. The differences between blue and red states have become too stark to govern under one rule.

IMO, red states are deadweight.

 

[overedge]

@becca please fix the typos in your posts so we can at least try to understand what you're saying.

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

@becca please fix the typos in your posts so we can at least try to understand what you're saying.

Dear Maker - thank you for saying this, @overedge - and, @becca, please don't use the excuse of typing into your phone or using speech-to-text software. If you are participating in discussions, show respect for those who choose to read what you post if you expect to be taken seriously at all. There is a preview function for a reason.

 

[becca]

I wouldn't be surprised if the US splits up. The differences between blue and red states have become too stark to govern under one rule.

IMO, red states are deadweight.

I didn’t realize that Texas was dead weight.
And lots of Californians and other blue staters are moving there to that dead weight state.

Also most of the Democrats support is in the metro areas.

The people in rural Illinois hate for example Chicagoland and feel all the state money goes to the city. They tend to vote for Republicans.

I would not be surprised if rural California feels similar.

Don’t you think that a functional country needs things like farm land?

And how exactly would Blue America work when Red America is literally between it.

Years ago the Democrats appealed to all working class voters of every race they need to think about why it stopped.

Republicans need to think why they stopped being the party of Lincoln.

Frankly in a lot of ways both sides need each other.

 

[VGThuy]

I can’t believe the mental gymnastics happening to defend this hypocrisy. Anybody who supported what McConnell did to subvert the intentions of the Constitution and balance of powers and basically spit on our system of appointment and confirmation back in 2016 and then turns around and defends rushing an appointment now is complicit in the destruction of this country. I guess the ends justifies the means, right? The whole idea of the Senate and President being of the same party making this a different situation is utter bullshit and anybody spouting that excuse is a bullshitter, no more, no less. Your opinion is worth nothing.

 

[once_upon]

I feel like the US is going to split. If it does I feel like it will be what must have happened to East Germany and West Germany. Someone, not you, drew a line and said "you belong to this leadership" and "you-you belong to that leadeflukes.

And because I live, my family lives, my husband's work is located in God damn trump/McConnell/Sasse/Fischer country, too bad so sad you are fcuked.

 

[canbelto]

I'll decipher @becca's posts so you don't have to.

All her posts: "I hate and agree they're totally amoral and evil ____ but abortion ..."

 

[once_upon]

I'll decipher @becca's posts so you don't have to.

All her posts: "I hate and agree they're totally amoral and evil ____ but abortion ..."

In other words. A few cells over rules anything. Those few cells need to triumph over any crime or evil. Because those few cells are more important than billions of people.

"Pro life" people don't actually believe in life. They believe in cells

 

[canbelto]

In other words. A few cells over rules anything. Those few cells need to triumph over any crime or evil. Because those few cells are more important than billions of people.

"Pro life" people don't actually believe in life. They believe in cells

More like:

In other Words a few cells Over rules anything these few cells need to triumph over any Crime or Evil despite what Trump has done I am not happy with him but those few cells are more Important than billions of people which is why people in South Dakota don't like being ruled by California Liberals keep in mind I don't like Trump but I can't vote for Biden because of abortion.

 

[MsZem]

Susan Collins tries to thread the needle:

Vulnerable GOP Sen. Collins splits with Trump: Wait until after the election to replace Ginsburg

The president quickly fired back at the Maine lawmaker, who is facing the toughest of re-election fights in a Democratic-leaning state.

www.nbcnews.com

Statement here.

 

[becca]

Abortion is not a few cells it’s millions of lives. I see it as lives.

I am not sure how I am voting it won’t be for Biden.

Abortion isn’t the only reason folks in the Dakotas for example don’t want to be ruled by the Progressives.

There are concerns about religious freedom.

Many are concerned about the new gender and the fact that anyone even a JK Rowling who questions the woke ideals is called a bigot.

i respect adults freedom to make their own choices when it comes to gender but I am deeply concerned when it comes to children.

Plus people in the Dakotas tend to prefer smaller government. My understanding is S. Dakota is doing well economically.

Blue staters may be moving to Texas and turn it blue but you know what some of the reasons people want to move to Texas is jobs and a lower cost of living.

And it’s Conservative policies that kind of make that happen.

There is actually a middle ground.

 

[Japanfan]

just because I don’t support abortion Because I feel it takes a life doesn’t mean I don’t support equal rights for women I appreciate a lot of what she has done...

If you would deny women of a constitutional right (right to privacy in the US and right to security of person in Canada) but support all other constitutional rights, then no, you do not support equal rights for women - in this case, the equal right to enjoy/access the rights provisions in the constitution.

Abortion is not a few cells it’s millions of lives. I see it as lives.

As is your right. But it is not your right to dictate how other women view abortion/other women's reproductive choices, nor is it your right to deny women of a constitutional right (though they are making a good attempt at it in the US).

The question that justices grappled with when debating abortion was not a moral one, but a constitutional one.

If a woman is morally opposed to abortion, it is her right to carry to term.

i respect adults freedom to make their own choices when it comes to gender but I am deeply concerned when it comes to children.

Are you involved in any causes to advance the welfare/well-being of children?

There is plenty of work for pro-life people to do in this regard. But they remain focused on policing women's bodies.

 

[overedge]

The "new gender", whatever the hell that is, has little if anything to do with the differences of opinion between Democrats and Republicans. And it sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with states' rights and the federal constitution.

But if people in any area are trying to frame laws so they can discriminate against gays, or people of different colours or races than their own, or whoever they think is worse than them, then maybe there should be a higher level of government stopping them from doing that.

 

[Vash01]

Mother Jones article

To Honor Ginsburg, Democrats Have One Choice: Go Nuclear

They will have to bring a bazooka to the GOP's gun fight.

www.motherjones.com

i fully support this. Dems need to be tough.

 

[ballettmaus]

If everything was majority voted we would have never had a country to begin with because the small states would have never agreed.

That's what democracy is all about - the majority. The minority should not be in charge and have the power to rule over the majority. That's not democratic. (That does not mean that the minority should be forgotten or excluded. The minority absolutely needs to be heard. If they're not, then we'll end up where we're at right now).

The President has to be someone who appeal accross the board if the Democrats Are having problem Winning the electoral college they need to look at why.

A President who wins the EC does not have to appeal to a majority. They only have to appeal to people in certain states. That's the whole problem of the EC. You don't need broad support or a majority to win because smaller states are overrepresented in the EC relative to their population.

And Republicans need to look at why they lose minorities.

Their racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, desire to take away welfare and decide what a woman can do with her body might have something to do with it. But that's just a guess.

I feel like the US is going to split. If it does I feel like it will be what must have happened to East Germany and West Germany.

I think there's a difference. Germany's separation was the result of an occupation. Right after the war, Germany was occupied by the four allied powers and there were four sectors of occupation. They had intended to govern Germany as a single entity but that plan broke apart because they weren't in agreement.
The Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic were not created until 1949 and West Germany was governed by military governors until then and officially occupied until 1955. It was only then that Germany was granted full authority as a sovereign state.

The US isn't occupied and has full authority as a sovereign state. If the US splits then it will be the US Government that draws the line in the sand, not another country and it will happen due to disagreement within the country, not due to occupation after a war was lost. (I think it would be extremely difficult to split it though and to be honest, I'm not sure the states would go for it. Can the economies of some states really survive without the federal government?)

 

[Japanfan]

Many are concerned about the new gender and the fact that anyone even a JK Rowling who questions the woke ideals is called a bigot.

What do you think is the reason for that?

 

[MacMadame]

I'll decipher @becca's posts so you don't have to.

All her posts: "I hate and agree they're totally amoral and evil ____ but abortion ..."

Except anyone who really cared about abortion would be voting Democrat because abortion rates fall much more sharply under Democratic presidents.

 

[misskarne]

Except anyone who really cared about abortion would be voting Democrat because abortion rates fall much more sharply under Democratic presidents.

It's almost like wanting easy, affordable access to health care and better sex ed leads to lower abortion rates or something, instead of making health care inaccessible and teaching religious-based sex ed.

But then I'll hazard a guess @becca doesn't believe in free/cheap/easily accessible birth control, either.

 

[MsZem]

Is this now the becca thread? She's not that interesting.

For those interested in learning more about Amy Coney Barrett, who may well be nominated:

The Top Contender for RBG’s Seat Has a Fundamentally Cruel Vision of the Law

Here's what we can expect if Trump fills the late justice's seat.

slate.com

I don't see how someone professing to be a person of faith can be so cruel, but then this seems like an issue with many people of faith. Perhaps they need to learn more about the things they profess to believe.

 

[MacMadame]

Many are concerned about the new gender

There's a new gender? Cool! What's it called?

 

[PRlady]

I think it's impossible not to respect RBG, whatever your politics.

I do not subscribe to her judicial views, nor those of liberal justices who legislate from the bench. I look forward to Trump's appointee and his or her confirmation. (Is there a Black woman he can nominate?) For those who think this is the end of the world, I think you'll find that the recent Republican appointees are far less likely to tow the party line than the likes of Scalia and Thomas.

While I vacillate between whether Democrats or Republicans are better (lesser evils) for the country, I am 100% convinced that only conservative justices fulfill the role of the judicial branch as it was intended. Don't hate, legislate.

Weirdly, I wonder if a conservative justice appointed to the Supreme Court would allow more people the freedom to vote for Biden. It's another control against a rogue Democratic party, running a very liberal campaign with moderate faces. I'd feel better about Biden with one more conservative on the court.

I guess you haven’t looked at the recent decisions in which conservative justices, including Roberts, continued to eviscerate division between church and state. Or you have forgotten Citizens United, which gave the one percent a stranglehold on the political process. Hobby Lobby. Heller on gun rights. All these decisions defied precedent to accomplish the conservative agenda.

 

[Spikefan]

Mother Jones article

To Honor Ginsburg, Democrats Have One Choice: Go Nuclear

They will have to bring a bazooka to the GOP's gun fight.

www.motherjones.com

i fully support this. Dems need to be tough.

I completely agree with this. My new motto:When they go low, go for the jugular.

 

[Reuven]

Is this now the becca thread? She's not that interesting.

SHE thinks she is, and you’re all playing into that. Let it go.

 

[MacMadame]

All justices "legislate from the bench." The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret laws when their interpretation isn't clear. The law is infinitely flexible and shaped by the will of the people and the times.

This idea that there is a pure constitutional argument for everything doesn't hold up to even the most shallow of scrutiny.

 

[once_upon]

Frankly, I believe this SC fight IS Conservative Evangelicals and Religious Right trying to control ABORTION, control of women and control certain minorities.

I'm said many times before you can't legislate abortions. I was in healthcare before R v W. I saw death caused by illegal abortions, sepsis caused by illegal abortions, ive seen a woman present in the ED beaten because her abusive partner didn't want the pregnancy, ive seen women who could afford to travel to a country where abortion was legal returning to her normal life the same week I saw a woman hemorrhaging from an illegal abortion. Ive taken care of babies who were incompatible with life, who had a neuro system that had involuntary breathing reflex but no suck reflex to feed, etc. Or have significant birth defects not compatible with life. Abortions will be sought, legally or illegally, have been for thousands of years.

I've had two pregnancies end with blighted ovum. The sac intact, cells. Ive had a stillbirth. Ive had a premature infant. I would not have ended those pregnancies voluntaraly but someone else might look at their situation differently. The blighted ovum ones I had no choice they aborted without fully aborting all tissue and required a D/C the procedure that anti abortionists say rips babies out, the stillbirth had to be expelled with high dose pitocin another method anti abortionists says rips babies out of their mothers wombs. Dont tell me thats different-its the same procedures they are screaming about.

Medically my gravida status reads 6-2-1-3. 6 pregnancies, 2 abortions (the medical terminology for ANY miscarriage or abortion), 1 stillbirth, 3 live births.

My brother's classmate was rejected by his "deeply religious" family for being homosexual and died alone, because he "chose that lifestyle". His partner wasn't allowed in the room. His partner couldn't help make decisions.

My house parents in college were a mixed race couple, I saw parents refuse to have their daughters live in an "immoral" place.

I lived filling out job applications having to list date of last menstrual period, I had to have my husband document he approved of my getting a prescription for birth control pills, I could not get a credit card without my husband's signature on the application. I saw women who were fired for being pregnant, or forced to quit because there was no maternity leave. My health insurance had riders regarding pregnancy. I was denied healthcare because of pre-existing conditions.

My elementary school was segregated. I remember "colored kids" not going to swimming pools and vaguely aware that it wasnt allowed.

I remember needing permission from the administration of my nursing diploma school to get married while I was in school. They could deny me an education because of marital status.

There weren't sports opportunities for girls/women.

It was legal to ask racial status on rent or housing applications. It was legal to not rent or sell to blacks. It was legal to deny employment or college entrances because of race or gender or sexuality or religion. It was legal to deny employment if you were pregnant.

I was blunt about abortion because for some right to life people, that's the only thing that matters a SC that will reverse that one decision. Its a slippery slope - what stops them with just that one reversal. All civil rights are threatened. If you've grown up having all the civil rights i talk about, you really don't get what is at risk.

Supreme Court Justices like RBG who interpret laws and rights which impacted those things. You have a single issue that you vote on? It changes everything else you might value.

If someone wants to throw shade at me, do it publicly. I can take it.

 

[taf2002]

More like:

In other Words a few cells Over rules anything these few cells need to triumph over any Crime or Evil despite what Trump has done I am not happy with him but those few cells are more Important than billions of people which is why people in South Dakota don't like being ruled by California Liberals keep in mind I don't like Trump but I can't vote for Biden because of abortion.

canbelto & @becca too - All Republicans are NOT for repealing Roe v Wade & all Democrats are NOT for abortion. It's not that black & white. But the proof is in the fact that Republicans in DC have made no effort to overturn abortion rights in the many many times they have had a majority in Congress and/or the Supreme Court. The 1st 2 yrs of Trump's term they had both Houses & the Court. Did the question ever come up? NO. A few stupid govenors tried to do thing like shove a camera up women's hoohahs or make criminals of women but no real effort has been done. The reason - Republicans want to blame Democrats without any efforts on their parts. Except for the tiny minority who use abortion as birth control I believe no likes abortion. What they like is women having power over their own bodies.

 

[olympic]

No the rule is in 2016 was if the opposing party controls the Senate no nominee in a election year. I don’t think that’s unfair. Honestly.

I do worry though that our judicial system has gotten so bad that we have this going on legislating from the bench does this Republicans have learned that the courts control of all.

I worry that eventually what may happen is the opposing party will never confirm another sides nominee. We really need to look at what’s causing this...the courts have to much power IMO.

Sad about her but if Trump confirms someone the first person who should be blamed is RBG she has the opportunity to step down when Obama was in office in 2014.

Your first sentence - What was broadcast from McConnell himself on the Senate floor was about the people, not some semantics about a divided government. Now I will add Ms. Lindsey Graham was clearer in 2018 about it not being about a lame duck

I read that McConnell written statement you linked for @MsZem . Here is my take on McConnell's thinking:

1. The Headline - McConnell frames it as the people's decision v. a Lame Duck President's decision. A first-term president can be a lame duck on Nov. 4th. Would McConnell move to place a justice on the court in the lame duck session? Wouldn't that be hypocritical? There is a chance that the confirmation process doesn't finish (or get started) until the lame duck session. There are key Republican senators vacillating right now. McConnell sounds like he's going there in the lame duck session.

2. As in 2016, voting is underway. his excuse is that primary voting was underway in 2016 The fact is more important general election voting is occurring right now

3. Eighty (80) years ago, he acknowledges that a justice was confirmed in a presidential election year.

4. One Hundred Thirty (130) years ago, he acknowledged precedent for confirming a justice when opposing parties held the senate and the presidency. If he's relying on precedence, it means he could've found a way to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016.

5. McConnell cites Biden - Biden NEVER implemented the process. He did suggest and recommend it. McConnell is acting on it. That is a big difference in my mind.

It sounds like you are cherry picking a couple of points that support your desire to cast McConnell as a consistent legislator, but he himself brings up several other issues that are consistent with 2016: Election year, voters are voting.

When you are looking at this political statement, you have to look at the overarching theme emanating from it, and this walking sack of shit did lay out the overwhelming theme - Let The people decide.

And Wow. that last sentence. If you believe that, you are a piece of work

 

[Cachoo]

Accountable

Lindsey said he wants us to use his words against him. Ok, done.

youtu.be

 

[Japanfan]

canbelto & @becca too - All Republicans are NOT for repealing Roe v Wade & all Democrats are NOT for abortion.

Pro-choice does not = pro-abortion. It is about a woman's right to choose, and one of those choices is the right to carry to term/give birth - a right that has been violated in China.

This was particularly evident in a court case some years back, in Manitoba (a lesser known Canadian province).

There was a woman who was a glue-sniffer and already had several developmentally challenged children, she and them all living on government monies. The province took the woman to court to demand that she have a mandated abortion - the court determined that such a mandate would violate her rights. Even though she was cognitively challenged, it was determined that she still had the right to make decisions about her own reproduction.