AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
In the part you quoted, I tried to keep it neutral by not naming her or her party ...just stating an idea I read about that I agree with and will advocate for.
Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
In the part you quoted, I tried to keep it neutral by not naming her or her party ...just stating an idea I read about that I agree with and will advocate for.
Yet, it's obvious isn't it.
"And that's not counting the sneak-it-in-anyhow-damn-the-rules snarky stuff."
lol
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
SeniorBen
Senior Member
I agree that is the role of SCOTUS, but this was a case where they overturned precedent. They could have just left it alone, which would have been best for our country. At this time of extreme polarization, they could have taken that into consideration. And they stated under oath during their confirmation hearings that they'd respect precedent, which, it turns out was a blatant lie. Obviously, they have no respect for precedent. (As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if Brett Kavanaugh thinks the name stare decisis is a dancer at a strip club he frequents.)
It has everything to do with religion. It's extremely rare for a non-religious person to be anti-abortion and this is all about banning abortion.
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
I'm not the authority here nor do I set rules here. So just some common sense. However I have been active on the Internet including many boards since its earliest days and in fact worked 6 years for the 800 pound gorilla most responsible for its rise.
There have always been many unmoderated web forums where members freely spout foul language and flame. That is offensive to many and often becomes a cesspool. Especially for those emotional personalities that are easily baited. There also many web forums without political limits and that tends to cause division and endless needless bickering, especially during election cycles. Many of us are sick of over-politicized media and those that cannot stop blabbering about such. Smartphone era social media where such is rampant makes some of us want to puke.
That noted, it is also true that there are a range of political facets to many subjects we seniors might discuss thus not injecting any level of political comment in our posts is not practical either. Those that tend to have strong political interests tend to demonize political parties and those they don't like by using real names. One sees that endlessly on media news sites that allow reader comments. Prohibiting using political party names or politician full names, will remove much of the incentive to spew such bile while still allowing anyone to understand intent.
There have always been many unmoderated web forums where members freely spout foul language and flame. That is offensive to many and often becomes a cesspool. Especially for those emotional personalities that are easily baited. There also many web forums without political limits and that tends to cause division and endless needless bickering, especially during election cycles. Many of us are sick of over-politicized media and those that cannot stop blabbering about such. Smartphone era social media where such is rampant makes some of us want to puke.
That noted, it is also true that there are a range of political facets to many subjects we seniors might discuss thus not injecting any level of political comment in our posts is not practical either. Those that tend to have strong political interests tend to demonize political parties and those they don't like by using real names. One sees that endlessly on media news sites that allow reader comments. Prohibiting using political party names or politician full names, will remove much of the incentive to spew such bile while still allowing anyone to understand intent.
CrowFlies
Member
- Location
- Rocky Mountains
thats pretty much what i mean when i say, or write, my opinion. i agree or disagree with something i take in.
i had to stop and conjure how i would express that in todays tech pc wurld. once i could simply say well i
read, or i learned, or saw on a doc....something id share or tell, you.
now, tho...i realize while im typing and editing my words that...there is so much crap on the net one has to
be cautious and verify what it is they share post circulate, anymore. that is such a disappointment with 'the net' imo.
but hey, hi!
CrowFlies
Member
- Location
- Rocky Mountains
@David777 ...what you describe is DU...places like that. even they moderate, ive not been there since 2000. LOLOL.
places, forums like this, we peoples dont get like that. well i dont.
we're all old and sharing how that feels and there is a social element to that. we have all seen a lot.
when you get old folks from Aus Uk Can NZ etc etc...and then us struggling oldies here...we have all seen a lot.
places, forums like this, we peoples dont get like that. well i dont.
we're all old and sharing how that feels and there is a social element to that. we have all seen a lot.
when you get old folks from Aus Uk Can NZ etc etc...and then us struggling oldies here...we have all seen a lot.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
No, they never explicitly said that they would not overturn precedent, and we all knew this is what they were preparing to do (all of us except for maybe Susan Collins), but it's still dishonest. Honesty doesn't seem to be an important moral value of a certain group of people. It seems like they're of the belief that the ends justifies the means.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
I've posted a few times in DU and it's pretty much just preaching to the choir. I'd rather participate in a forum where there's a diversity of ideas, as long as people are respectful, which is what we have here probably 90% of the time.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Not for women in need of a termination. Also not for women who suffer a spontaneous abortion, otherwise known as a miscarriage. Under some proposed laws she will have to prove that she did not do something to cause it. For many women it is not about interpretation - it is about personal liberty. US for them will no longer be the Land of the Free. It will be like living in a nightmare.
Sorry that you are butt hurt about this but the facts are the facts, and I suspect that this is not the last instance where the current court has to correct the errors of the old "activist" courts. Roe v Wade was wrong and this fixes it. You are free to start the process to amend the constitution to fit your view, and when it comes time for me to vote on that amendment, I'll support abortion rights.
We’re
If a person lives in a state that does not allow for an abortion, there are several companies that are willing to pay for the women’s travel to a state that does allow an abortion.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/companies-abortion-reaction/index.html
We are talking about two different things. When a law is written, it has to be interpreted. So many times, the legislature has done only half the job. That’s why we have judges, who attempt to figure out just what the intent was meant to be. Same for amendments. If is not thoroughly interpreted piece by piece, judges then have to use their best judgment in trying to apply the law as it was intended.
If a person lives in a state that does not allow for an abortion, there are several companies that are willing to pay for the women’s travel to a state that does allow an abortion.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/companies-abortion-reaction/index.html
No matter where you live, there will be restrictions on your freedom. Women in many states have lost nothing. The women in states like Texas can work to get the laws changed, but until then have to work around restrictions. Are women in Australia free to do whatever they want? For example, can they carry a side arm to protect themselves, if they wish?
This ruling is not the end of the discussion. Pro-abortion people can work in their own state to change laws as necessary and at the same time start the process to amend the constitution. Just get 2/3 of Congress to pass a bill, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. It's been done before...
Last edited:
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
When discussing certain things it's impossible to not include names for clarity. For instance, I named Clarence Thomas when mentioning his quite important concurring opinion, because he authored it.
Matrix allows discussions to flow and treats us like adults. I'm glad he looks at a comment's context rather than using hard and fast rules like prohibiting party names or politicians' names.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
You won't get to vote for an amendment. That's not how the system is setup.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
Those companies only pay for their employees to travel for an abortion. Unemployed women or women who don't work for companies who pay for travel don't have those resources. This ruling will only affect poor women, and those are the women who are least able to take care of a child.
Unless the woman happens to live in Missouri, which is trying to introduce a law making it a crime to travel to another state for the purpose of abortion, or to help anyone else to do so.
helenbacque
Senior Member
- Location
- Central Florida
There is very little that is sadder than a child born when and where it is unwanted. The first 3 months of bonding sets a tone for its lifetime.
I doubt that will pass because IMO, it would be unconstitutional. I think the 14th amendment would cover it. I am not a constitutional expert, but from what I have read from other outlets, this amendment seems to fit the cause.
Timewise 60+
Senior Member
It does not take a rich person to join a Political Action Committee! Just someone who wants to be actually engaged in the American Political Process. They are all American citizens and are in fact participating in their representative government by combining their individual contributions to support the candidate(s) they all want to win.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
If anyone is curious about just Who really runs our government, I suggest that they spend some time on the web site, Opensecrets.org. This site does a pretty good job of tracking the flow of money to our politicians. Then, go to VoteSmart.org and check out your politicians voting record to see how many of them "follow the money".
The Only time most of these clowns consider the needs of the voters is during the weeks leading to election, where they spend a fortune on their TV ads trying to convince the voters that they "really" care.
We have reached the point where voting is trying to choose the "lesser of the evils".
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
Under previous SCOTUS justices I'd have agreed with you, but my confidence is zero with this court.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
You make a good argument for publicly funded elections.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
Absolutely! If I were "king", I would ban ALL private political donations, and assign a "fixed" amount of government money to All candidates, based upon which office they are running for. We would be Far Better off spending some taxpayer money and getting politicians who are not firmly in the pockets of the wealthy special interests.