4 ms·

In one word, the OP plays with the accusation that what Trump says isn't real. Okay, let's consider what in the OP is/is not real. Here I am not talking for/a

by graycat 11y ago

In one word, the OP plays with the accusation that what Trump says isn't real. Okay, let's consider what in the OP is/is not real. Here I am not talking for/against abortion but about eighth grade civics on the SCOTUS and US Constitution: "But the party’s real stand on the sanctity of female biology had been encapsulated in the debate by Walker’s and Marco Rubio’s endorsement of a ban on abortions for women who have been raped or risk dying in childbirth." Real? That's about where I want to stop reading the OP. Why? I know that for me eighth grade civics was a long time ago, but as I recall (1) the SCOTUS case of Roe v Wade that made abortion legal is now 40+ years old; (2) to change that decision need (A) a lot of what would be, say, unlikely new SCOTUS nominations or (B) a Constitutional amendment that would take 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Considering how often we have Constitutional amendments, maybe centuries. Real? Talking about "a ban on abortions" is real? I don't think so.

zimpenfish 11y ago
> So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Presumably, then, you'd expect any serious competent candidate to know this and not make statements suggesting that such a thing could happen? (I'm in the UK, we have our own flavour of crazy.)
- graycat 11y ago
  IMHO the usual explanation of why some US politicians talk about making abortion illegal is simple and obvious: Such politicians want publicity, votes, and then power in elected office. Then, one level deeper, the reason a politician suspects that talking about making abortion illegal would lead to votes is (A) many voters regard abortion as murder of a human life, (B) an appeal to the strong moral objections to murder, (C) an appeal to the desire for traditional family values that cherishes children and, thus, finds abortion repugnant murder, (D) etc. So, with (A)-(D), can hope to get some voters up on their hind legs, get votes, win, take office, have power. IMHO, that's the usual explanation. Again, my point here is not about pro/con on abortion but just on the process and politics: In particular, with my understanding of the US legal system, talking about making abortion illegal is talking about something that has slim to no chance of happening, divisive, a distraction from issues where something might be done, a spit to windward, etc. A conspiracy explanation would be that the US Republicans have a list of favorite issues, heavily to make the rich richer, don't want to talk about those issues in public in political campaigns, so come up with issues, e.g., abortion, that will serve as misdirections to permit winning elections without talking about or addressing in public in campaigns the real issues they have in mind. For more, the explanation goes that wealthy backers of the Republicans, e.g., the Koch brothers, with their money for political campaign contributions, are setting the real agenda of the Republican party and pulling strings of the candidates as if they were all puppets. For me, I don't know how real that explanation is: E.g., I know next to nothing about the Koch brothers or other candidate string pullers. And I don't know the extent to which politicians have strings to be pulled. Money, Koch brothers, strings, puppets, all aside, again, just from the process, I see slim to no chances of making abortion illegal within 100 years so am irritated that our political process and the OP are still talking about abortion as if there might be some change in the law. So, I find the OP not very real and, thus, find some irony in the OP talking about Trump as not very real. Then, is Trump real? Tough for me to know: His poll numbers are, for whatever they say that is real, look real. His main slogan about "great again" is not very, say, solid as in, say, a legal document, a research paper in physical science or mathematics, an engineering document for, say, a long bridge, a detailed business plan, etc., but, then, for whatever reasons, US politics doesn't have a lot of documents nearly that solid. So, if must evaluate a politician, and if vote then do have to do that, then have to go on evidence less solid than would want. Or, maybe pay attention to the least un-solid evidence can get. It looks like politics is not very competitive, that is, doesn't offer very solid products, so that in comparison, if the auto industry were that uncompetitive, then the average distance a new car could travel without falling apart would be about 10 miles -- on a good day! I don't want to evaluate Trump or any particular politician here. Instead, again, my point was to question how real the OP was; at the place I indicated, I found the OP to be not real enough and soon quit reading. So, I was shooting at the OP. So, I'm not really discussing politics or even abortion but just editorial writing.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    It doesn't have to be real, merely a convincing enough simulation. This is nothing new, truthiness was coined back in the late Bush administration.
hga 11y ago
Uh, no, although I'll admit it wasn't taught in my 1085 9th grade civics class. The Founders profoundly distrusted the Supreme Court, and in Article III, Section 2, there is a provision that's been used more than a few times, including in the last few decades, to remove something from the Federal Court's remit: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. ADDED: See this for extensive discussion of the practice of "jurisdiction_stripping": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping That national level Republicans have never tried in the abortion domain suggests to me how much they really care about the issue.
- graycat 11y ago
  Interesting quote. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, really, there is nothing Congress can do about a SCOTUS decision such as Roe v Wade just by passing a law and getting the POTUS to sign it. And should a US state pass a law against abortion, the legal system would instantly use Roe v Wade to strike down that state law. If all that is so, then the only way to make abortion illegal is to reverse Roe v Wade, and there are only two ways to do that, (A) have another case brought to the SCOTUS and accepted for review by the SCOTUS and with enough new justices to reverse Roe v Wade and (B) have a Constitutional amendment with, as I mentioned, 2/3rds of the House, .... IMHO, the chances of either (A) or (B) within 100 years look slim to none. If all that is correct, then talking about laws against abortion is some form of self-abuse or manipulation of others and less useful than a spit to windward. Again, I'm just talking about process, not the pros/cons of abortion.
  - hga 11y ago
    I apologize for not including this in my original posting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping It is a well established practice, and note the contemporary uses in the '90s and '00s.

by graycat 11y ago

zimpenfish 11y ago

> So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Presumably, then, you'd expect any serious competent candidate to know this and not make statements suggesting that such a thing could happen? (I'm in the UK, we have our own flavour of crazy.)

graycat 11y ago
IMHO the usual explanation of why some US politicians talk about making abortion illegal is simple and obvious: Such politicians want publicity, votes, and then power in elected office. Then, one level deeper, the reason a politician suspects that talking about making abortion illegal would lead to votes is (A) many voters regard abortion as murder of a human life, (B) an appeal to the strong moral objections to murder, (C) an appeal to the desire for traditional family values that cherishes children and, thus, finds abortion repugnant murder, (D) etc. So, with (A)-(D), can hope to get some voters up on their hind legs, get votes, win, take office, have power. IMHO, that's the usual explanation. Again, my point here is not about pro/con on abortion but just on the process and politics: In particular, with my understanding of the US legal system, talking about making abortion illegal is talking about something that has slim to no chance of happening, divisive, a distraction from issues where something might be done, a spit to windward, etc. A conspiracy explanation would be that the US Republicans have a list of favorite issues, heavily to make the rich richer, don't want to talk about those issues in public in political campaigns, so come up with issues, e.g., abortion, that will serve as misdirections to permit winning elections without talking about or addressing in public in campaigns the real issues they have in mind. For more, the explanation goes that wealthy backers of the Republicans, e.g., the Koch brothers, with their money for political campaign contributions, are setting the real agenda of the Republican party and pulling strings of the candidates as if they were all puppets. For me, I don't know how real that explanation is: E.g., I know next to nothing about the Koch brothers or other candidate string pullers. And I don't know the extent to which politicians have strings to be pulled. Money, Koch brothers, strings, puppets, all aside, again, just from the process, I see slim to no chances of making abortion illegal within 100 years so am irritated that our political process and the OP are still talking about abortion as if there might be some change in the law. So, I find the OP not very real and, thus, find some irony in the OP talking about Trump as not very real. Then, is Trump real? Tough for me to know: His poll numbers are, for whatever they say that is real, look real. His main slogan about "great again" is not very, say, solid as in, say, a legal document, a research paper in physical science or mathematics, an engineering document for, say, a long bridge, a detailed business plan, etc., but, then, for whatever reasons, US politics doesn't have a lot of documents nearly that solid. So, if must evaluate a politician, and if vote then do have to do that, then have to go on evidence less solid than would want. Or, maybe pay attention to the least un-solid evidence can get. It looks like politics is not very competitive, that is, doesn't offer very solid products, so that in comparison, if the auto industry were that uncompetitive, then the average distance a new car could travel without falling apart would be about 10 miles -- on a good day! I don't want to evaluate Trump or any particular politician here. Instead, again, my point was to question how real the OP was; at the place I indicated, I found the OP to be not real enough and soon quit reading. So, I was shooting at the OP. So, I'm not really discussing politics or even abortion but just editorial writing.
- Apocryphon 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be real, merely a convincing enough simulation. This is nothing new, truthiness was coined back in the late Bush administration.

hga 11y ago

Uh, no, although I'll admit it wasn't taught in my 1085 9th grade civics class. The Founders profoundly distrusted the Supreme Court, and in Article III, Section 2, there is a provision that's been used more than a few times, including in the last few decades, to remove something from the Federal Court's remit: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. ADDED: See this for extensive discussion of the practice of "jurisdiction_stripping": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping That national level Republicans have never tried in the abortion domain suggests to me how much they really care about the issue.

graycat 11y ago
Interesting quote. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, really, there is nothing Congress can do about a SCOTUS decision such as Roe v Wade just by passing a law and getting the POTUS to sign it. And should a US state pass a law against abortion, the legal system would instantly use Roe v Wade to strike down that state law. If all that is so, then the only way to make abortion illegal is to reverse Roe v Wade, and there are only two ways to do that, (A) have another case brought to the SCOTUS and accepted for review by the SCOTUS and with enough new justices to reverse Roe v Wade and (B) have a Constitutional amendment with, as I mentioned, 2/3rds of the House, .... IMHO, the chances of either (A) or (B) within 100 years look slim to none. If all that is correct, then talking about laws against abortion is some form of self-abuse or manipulation of others and less useful than a spit to windward. Again, I'm just talking about process, not the pros/cons of abortion.
- hga 11y ago
  I apologize for not including this in my original posting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping It is a well established practice, and note the contemporary uses in the '90s and '00s.