Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Pepper said:
If you think they will go against the base..........haha. Not dismissing your idea, love your idea. It's a future idea, not a now idea IMO.
Click to expand...
They'll go with popular opinion if that's what it takes to get re-elected. Congress members on the right are in a sticky situation; they know this issue ensures a mostly left congress unless they make compromises or even go against their base. Wouldn't be the first time. Both sides have been disingenuous from time to time to snag votes.
 

Pepper said:
You think passing an amendment to the constitution would be doable, not to take seriously your 'easy accomplishment' remark---with the country as split and divisive as it is? Earth to @ElCastor.

There is nothing wrong in being prepared for a likely outcome, or do you think not? The women today who need Roe also need to remember how hard to achieve and how precious it is. It's a good education at the very least!

No one is talking about scrapping the Constitution except you. What a silly notion.
Click to expand...
Regarding passing an amendment, if it was doable 27 times in the past, of course I believe it is doable now. I'd refer you to Murrmurr's post on the subject.
Regarding scrapping the Constitution, I am most definitely y NOT in favor of it, but certain elements seem to believe it is worth considering. Rather than say who those elements are, and risk violating a forum rule, I suggest you Bing "scrap the Constitution" and decide for yourself.
 

ElCastor said:
Thanks for answering my question. You did not disappoint. The flaw in your well intentioned reply, and the reason why we differ in our approach to our system of laws and the Constitution was your repeated referral to morality. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone. That is why the law and the Constitution must be specific -- to the last detail -- details that define our form of government and our system of morality. We are governed by those agreed upon details, and it is the task of our Supreme Court justices to accurately interpret their factual nature. It is NOT the court's job to apply their view of morality to what those details "should" mean, but rather to what they "do" mean. Don't like or agree with that meaning? Then we should amend and clarify the Constitution -- not picket and threaten the judges.
Click to expand...

I love questions. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject?

Answer: To know universal law and good manners. This notion is based on the belief that the universe is ordered and we can come to understand that order and our lives are better when we conform to that order. And to know good manners. Like people are not rocks and things go better when we don't offend or threaten people.

question: Is it you or me?

Answer: I sure hope so. Our liberty is the right to determine what is right but that goes with knowledge of human decency which must be taught. Socrates and Cicero thought if we do wrong, it is because we do not know better. Aristotle pushed that further and I wish we all were well informed of his explanations. It is not enough to know right from wrong but we also must have virtues and that requires practicing the right choices until they become habitual. Confucius and other Eastern philosophers would agree.

Question: Is abortion immoral?

Question in reply. Why would it be immoral? This could be the beginning of meaningful debate.

Question: Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral?

Answer: :LOL: When in Rome do as the Romans do. I promise you, out of respect, I would follow Shia law if I were in country that follows Shia law. I absolutely would not be involved in any way with alcoholic drinks nor would I dress as we do in the US. This is a matter of respect.

Question: Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment?

Answer: One of my great-grandsons has very dark skin and has black kicky hair. As far as I can tell, that is the only way he is different from everyone else in the family. I think the statement about African Americans is born out of ignorance. It seems stupid to me to punish ignorant people. That isn't going to make them any smarter and it will surely build resistance. :LOL: My sister has some Neanderthal genes and my very white-skinned and blond-haired grandson has African genes. Hopefully, with science, we will get over our prejudices. And beginning ignorant is being a bad citizen. Several virtues can be applied to this problem, and also the democratic value of equality and respecting others.

Question: In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? My goodness, I criticize Christianity all the time. I think a lot of us do and we would be shocked if we were punished for it. I think knowing truth is a priority and freedom of speech certainly applies here. However, tack is very important when dealing with religious differences and sometimes it is best if we keep our mouths shut. When it comes to Christianity I have a big problem with that, so I have banned myself from the community breakfast because I can tolerate Christian beliefs right now and they say things I can not tolerate. Religion and politics got too mixed and the pandemic made this a life or death matter. 😖

You said: "Immorality is a relative term that can mean something different to anyone."

The Greeks asked, "is something bad because the gods say it is, or do the gods say something is bad because it is bad?" That is a question about universal law. The Greeks concluded even the gods must comply with universal law. Unlike the Christian God, Greek gods were not all-powerful. The law is above them. If something is bad or good it is a matter of if it is destructive or beneficial. That means being moral is very important! Disaster follows being immoral and that is why we don't want to be immoral nor to tolerate others being immoral. Being stupid about health matters during a pandemic threatens everyone and that is immoral! If people don't want to wear a mask, they should keep their mouths close and stop breathing when in public. 😂
 
Vida May said:
I love questions. What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject?
Click to expand...
Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...

A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
Or ...
B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?

A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8
 
ElCastor said:
Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...

A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
Or ...
B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?

A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8
Click to expand...
oo! oo!...can I inject a hint?

@Vida May : Democracy, a form of government in which (ideally) the people elect the governing officials who will deliberate and create legislation, should influence your answer.
 
Murrmurr said:
oo! oo!...can I inject a hint?

@Vida May : Democracy, a form of government in which (ideally) the people elect the governing officials who will deliberate and create legislation, should influence your answer.
Click to expand...
Just about right! A democracy is...
NOUN
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:\...

The USA is a form of democracy, but more complex than that... it is a Constitutional Republic! Keeping this simple...you can say, A Constitutional Republic is a governing state in which officials whom are elected as representatives of the people are obligated to govern according to existing constitutional law, according to established rules in the law of the land and which limit the powers of those elected.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Just about right! A democracy is...
NOUN
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:\...

The USA is a form of democracy, but more complex than that... it is a Constitutional Republic! Keeping this simple...you can say, A Constitutional Republic is a governing state in which officials whom are elected as representatives of the people are obligated to govern according to existing constitutional law, according to established rules in the law of the land and which limit the powers of those elected.
Click to expand...
So, basically, you're saying the people elect governing officials, aka, representatives, to decide law.
 
Murrmurr said:
So, basically, you're saying the people elect governing officials, aka, representatives, to decide law.
Click to expand...
Basically, yes! Although the law makers must operate within the confines of the U. S. Constitution when making new laws. Unless of course they change the Constitution, which as you know, requires the States approval also. As I recall, both Congress and the states must approve a change to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority.
 
ElCastor said:
Since you love questions, to be brief, here is a question for you, and in fact for both of us -- although I think you know my answer. If you disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution by our Supreme Court justices, should we ...

A. Harass the judges and picket their homes? (Probably illegal by the way.)
Or ...
B. Amend the Constitution to eliminate any discord on its meaning?

A simple "A" or "B" will suffice. (-8
Click to expand...
Why such a ridiculous choice? Why only A or B? How about C through all the rest of the alphabet of choices?
 
chic said:
Well it was a good idea while it worked. :unsure:
Click to expand...
What made the US work (imo) was free enterprise and the freedom to invent and innovate - letting good minds work, letting farmers farm, and letting young people learn academics and/or trade skills without gov't interference.

Democracy in the US became corrupt within 50 yrs of it's creation. Free enterprise was taken over by crony capitalism almost immediately, and became fully corrupt, virtually impenetrable except to the very wealthy, 50-60 yrs ago, with the middle class keeping it afloat through market-manipulation.

Crony capitalists are discovering that this is unsustainable during long-term inflationary periods, even when democracy is manipulated. The whole corrupt system will collapse when they have enough wealth to not care anymore. But could they ever reach that point? Could there be a point where the greedy are satisfied they have enough wealth, and don't need the middle class? They wouldn't stick around to share their wealth with an absolutely massive class of dependents, that's for sure. They'd take their money and run. ....I'm rambling.

But maybe that's why they buy islands and yachts. 😒
 
ElCastor said:
What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? Is it you or me? Is abortion immoral? Some would apparently say it is. Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? Millions would say it is. Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment?
Click to expand...
Good questions and I believe @Vida May provided some good answers, from her point of view. You two got my attention so even though not asked I will give my answers and thoughts:

What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? I believe morality is just the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization. Necessary because our hunter/gatherer ancestors were too violent and immoral by our standards for civilization to flourish, for example killing a stranger was an accepted thing for many primitive people. So was stealing from the neighbors. Over time these rules became a part of many of our religions as Commandments and things of the like. I think the ultimate authority, to the extent there is one, is just the rational collective thinking of us, so in a way we are. The broader the support of a rule the better is works.

Is abortion immoral? No, not in my opinion in part due to the lack of rational collective thinking or consensus on the issue, all the posts here prove that. And I don't see how abortion materially impacts civilization, not the way murder of living breathing people does.

Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? No!

Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? No, probably not, it is however most certainly wrong and stupid to say, but being an obnoxious cretin is different from being immoral.

In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? No, I don't know what Brigitte said but I think this is more likely to fall into the obnoxious cretin category. Always enjoyed looking at Brigitte, if this is true it will certainly detract from my opinion of her...
 
AnnieA said:
Never gonna happen nor should it. This is a midterm game.
Click to expand...
I actually think this is terrible for Republicans. Sure the Religious Right will be happy but they weren't going anywhere anyway. Lots of independent votes will be lost. Republicans were likely to make great gains with the current state of things, but this could hamper that. I think Repubs should have kept talking about stopping abortion without really doing anything about it, much like Democrats do with "helping" black people.
 
Alligatorob said:
Good questions and I believe @Vida May provided some good answers, from her point of view. You two got my attention so even though not asked I will give my answers and thoughts:

What is "morality", and who is the ultimate authority on the subject? I believe morality is just the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization. Necessary because our hunter/gatherer ancestors were too violent and immoral by our standards for civilization to flourish, for example killing a stranger was an accepted thing for many primitive people. So was stealing from the neighbors. Over time these rules became a part of many of our religions as Commandments and things of the like. I think the ultimate authority, to the extent there is one, is just the rational collective thinking of us, so in a way we are. The broader the support of a rule the better is works.

Is abortion immoral? No, not in my opinion in part due to the lack of rational collective thinking or consensus on the issue, all the posts here prove that. And I don't see how abortion materially impacts civilization, not the way murder of living breathing people does.

Is allowing a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered immoral? No!

Is pointing out that the median IQ of African Americans is 85 immoral and deserving of a fine or imprisonment? No, probably not, it is however most certainly wrong and stupid to say, but being an obnoxious cretin is different from being immoral.

In France, Brigitte Bardot has been arrested multiple times for criticizing Islam. Is she immoral and deserving of punishment? No, I don't know what Brigitte said but I think this is more likely to fall into the obnoxious cretin category. Always enjoyed looking at Brigitte, if this is true it will certainly detract from my opinion of her...
Click to expand...
On the subject of Brigitte Bardot ...
Bardot is an animal rights activist. One of her pet peeves (among several) is the ritual sacrifice of sheeps and goats. She denounces and gets arrested, multiple times. I guess France lacks a First Amendment.
"Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.
Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-bardot-muslims-idINL1584799120080415

So what is morality -- "the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization"? OK, but then who defines and interprets morality? Not you or me -- it's our system of laws. And who defines those laws -- our elected legislators and judicial system. Not surprisingly it's pretty much guaranteed that not everyone will completely agree. So what then? Our system of laws provides for free speech and a method for defining, or redefining, those rules we have imposed on ourselves, but nowhere in that process is there a provision for picketing the home of a judge.

"Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge""
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/0...ces-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/

Hate to repeat myself, but don't like the law, change or redefine it.
 
ElCastor said:
On the subject of Brigitte Bardot ...
Bardot is an animal rights activist. One of her pet peeves (among several) is the ritual sacrifice of sheeps and goats. She denounces and gets arrested, multiple times. I guess France lacks a First Amendment.
"Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.
Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-bardot-muslims-idINL1584799120080415

So what is morality -- "the rules we have collectively agreed to live by to protect our civilization"? OK, but then who defines and interprets morality? Not you or me -- it's our system of laws. And who defines those laws -- our elected legislators and judicial system. Not surprisingly it's pretty much guaranteed that not everyone will completely agree. So what then? Our system of laws provides for free speech and a method for defining, or redefining, those rules we have imposed on ourselves, but nowhere in that process is there a provision for picketing the home of a judge.

"Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge""
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/0...ces-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/

Hate to repeat myself, but don't like the law, change or redefine it.
Click to expand...
That must be a very old article.. Bridget Bardot is 87 years old...not 73
 
Sunny said:
Why such a ridiculous choice? Why only A or B? How about C through all the rest of the alphabet of choices?
Click to expand...
Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.
 
ElCastor said:
Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see abortion laws disappear. As I said earlier, it would be good to let scientists and researchers give guidance in deciding when an unborn child is a whole person, and has constitutional rights, but other than that I see no reason for abortion laws at all.
 
Murrmurr said:
What made the US work (imo) was free enterprise and the freedom to invent and innovate - letting good minds work, letting farmers farm, and letting young people learn academics and/or trade skills without gov't interference.

Democracy in the US became corrupt within 50 yrs of it's creation. Free enterprise was taken over by crony capitalism almost immediately, and became fully corrupt, virtually impenetrable except to the very wealthy, 50-60 yrs ago, with the middle class keeping it afloat through market-manipulation.

Crony capitalists are discovering that this is unsustainable during long-term inflationary periods, even when democracy is manipulated. The whole corrupt system will collapse when they have enough wealth to not care anymore. But could they ever reach that point? Could there be a point where the greedy are satisfied they have enough wealth, and don't need the middle class? They wouldn't stick around to share their wealth with an absolutely massive class of dependents, that's for sure. They'd take their money and run. ....I'm rambling.

But maybe that's why they buy islands and yachts. 😒
Click to expand...
I think they've already destroyed the middle class by tax cuts for the super wealthy while hitting the average person over and over again to the breaking point. People can no longer afford homes on their income. Recently, all are struggling just to pay bills, eat and drive. The elites don't need or want a middle class anymore. Not even as consumers. What we do about it, if we can do anything at all, is the question. If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked.
 
ElCastor said:
Since picketing and intimidating judges is illegal, it seems like our options are limited, but if you have a solution to this mess, please share it.
Click to expand...
Unless you're trespassing, picketing the judges is an act of speech, which is a perfectly legal and protected right under the 1st Amendment. The illegality of intimidating a judge would depend on specifics and whether or not you threatened bodily harm or other factors.
 
chic said:
I think they've already destroyed the middle class by tax cuts for the super wealthy while hitting the average person over and over again to the breaking point. People can no longer afford homes on their income. Recently, all are struggling just to pay bills, eat and drive. The elites don't need or want a middle class anymore. Not even as consumers. What we do about it, if we can do anything at all, is the question. If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked.
Click to expand...
"If bureaucracy steps in to direct what's left of our lives we're cooked."

Yeah, we definitely don't want that to happen. (that's not sarcasm, btw)

Why do you think the elite don't need us as consumers? Do you think they're in a position to offer us a utopian deal? ....free housing, free medical care, and free child care in exchange for keeping their factories going? (<this isn't sarcasm, either)

I know money makes money, but I hope that continues to rely on consumerism.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top