10 ms·

Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting th

Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, .... It's all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it's a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would 1. care about the already born, first, and 2. push for the widespread availability of contraception. Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it's clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.

JasonFruit 4y ago
> The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, we don't vote for Supreme Court justices. There's no leverage to impose electoral or party pressure on a justice who has already been appointed, unless it is by impeachment. Your assessment of their motivations doesn't hold up.
- zzleeper 4y ago
  Are you naive or what? Republicans have lists of candidates for justices that they have deemed so anti roe-vs-wade that they deemed safe to propose for justices. Someone like Thomas is not going to change his mind once he is appointed...
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    Why not, if he's now free to act as he pleases? The assertion is that he doesn't believe he's acting rightly, but does so under electoral pressure. If I'm naive, please explain: what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right, now that he's appointed?
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      Your naïveté lies in the fact that you don’t realize that Supreme Court justices are elected by proxy of voting for the president that nominated them and the senators that confirm them. It stands to reason that on average, if you elect conservative presidents and senators, you will get conservative justices, and vice-versa. You seem to assert that there are wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing, waiting until they are confirmed to show their true colors to save the country. I counter that reality is more boring than that, and that these people can be taken at face value by virtue of what they’ve said and done for decades. Furthermore, I think yours is an apologist/denialist stance people use so they can get someone in the courts they truly approve of, while hiding behind the “hope” that they won’t be as bad as everyone else knows they will.
      - JasonFruit 4y ago
        The only part of what you wrote that addresses my point is this: > You seem to assert that there are wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing, waiting until they are confirmed to show their true colors to save the country Against this characterization I would oppose John Roberts, who was appointed by a Republican president, but has been reluctant to create any non-trivial precedent on topics that figure in the Republican platform. There's a lot of anger among Republican voters over that, but what can they do? They can't vote him out, he is not beholden to the Republican party, and he's done nothing impeachable. I understand how this can be difficult to perceive from outside, especially if you happen to be in a bubble that perceives Republicans as uniformly deplorable. But I assure you that Roberts is viewed that way. (I view them from another direction entirely.) As far as my stance being apologist or denialist, you have no idea what I think or want.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  Pointed out by you. Maybe you should stop writing it; surely once is enough.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Sorry, I learn by repetition
cato_the_elder 4y ago
> Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. This is just straw manning the other side's position to the extreme. > If they truly cared about the unborn, they would Neither of those are logical implications of being against late-stage abortion, and you don't get to tell others what they should care about.
- warent 4y ago
  If evidence on their position was completely missing or neutral then I would agree with you. Sadly, this is far from a straw man because there is evidence that they do not care. These are the same people who actively work against giving children school lunches, who protect racist gerrymandering, who want to defund planned parenthood, and so on. If, in the same breath, we were talking about significantly revolutionizing support for children/families in poverty, then this would be a different discussion. Sadly, look at the polls, this is majority boomers who no longer have functioning ovaries & men whose egos demand control over women. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identificatio...
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  The parent isn't wrong. Republicans don't do shit to support "the born" who are ill or live in crushing poverty, they don't give a shit about people, they give a shit about power and this is a lever they've been yanking on to get it for years.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    On one hand, you are correct in that the right is more reluctant to use governmental power to improve society. That's in part because they put more emphasis on personal responsibility, and in part because they are skeptical of the government's competence. On the hand, I think the right has done more than they usually get credit for. Median real wages rose significantly under Trump. [1] Nixon created the EPA. [2] At an individual level, conservatives donate significantly more to charities, and give blood more often. [3] [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-...

JasonFruit 4y ago

> The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, we don't vote for Supreme Court justices. There's no leverage to impose electoral or party pressure on a justice who has already been appointed, unless it is by impeachment. Your assessment of their motivations doesn't hold up.

zzleeper 4y ago
Are you naive or what? Republicans have lists of candidates for justices that they have deemed so anti roe-vs-wade that they deemed safe to propose for justices. Someone like Thomas is not going to change his mind once he is appointed...
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  Why not, if he's now free to act as he pleases? The assertion is that he doesn't believe he's acting rightly, but does so under electoral pressure. If I'm naive, please explain: what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right, now that he's appointed?
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    Your naïveté lies in the fact that you don’t realize that Supreme Court justices are elected by proxy of voting for the president that nominated them and the senators that confirm them. It stands to reason that on average, if you elect conservative presidents and senators, you will get conservative justices, and vice-versa. You seem to assert that there are wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing, waiting until they are confirmed to show their true colors to save the country. I counter that reality is more boring than that, and that these people can be taken at face value by virtue of what they’ve said and done for decades. Furthermore, I think yours is an apologist/denialist stance people use so they can get someone in the courts they truly approve of, while hiding behind the “hope” that they won’t be as bad as everyone else knows they will.
    - JasonFruit 4y ago
      The only part of what you wrote that addresses my point is this: > You seem to assert that there are wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing, waiting until they are confirmed to show their true colors to save the country Against this characterization I would oppose John Roberts, who was appointed by a Republican president, but has been reluctant to create any non-trivial precedent on topics that figure in the Republican platform. There's a lot of anger among Republican voters over that, but what can they do? They can't vote him out, he is not beholden to the Republican party, and he's done nothing impeachable. I understand how this can be difficult to perceive from outside, especially if you happen to be in a bubble that perceives Republicans as uniformly deplorable. But I assure you that Roberts is viewed that way. (I view them from another direction entirely.) As far as my stance being apologist or denialist, you have no idea what I think or want.
stefan_ 4y ago
Pointed out by you. Maybe you should stop writing it; surely once is enough.
- lovich 4y ago
  Sorry, I learn by repetition

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. This is just straw manning the other side's position to the extreme. > If they truly cared about the unborn, they would Neither of those are logical implications of being against late-stage abortion, and you don't get to tell others what they should care about.

warent 4y ago
If evidence on their position was completely missing or neutral then I would agree with you. Sadly, this is far from a straw man because there is evidence that they do not care. These are the same people who actively work against giving children school lunches, who protect racist gerrymandering, who want to defund planned parenthood, and so on. If, in the same breath, we were talking about significantly revolutionizing support for children/families in poverty, then this would be a different discussion. Sadly, look at the polls, this is majority boomers who no longer have functioning ovaries & men whose egos demand control over women. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identificatio...
CuriouslyC 4y ago
The parent isn't wrong. Republicans don't do shit to support "the born" who are ill or live in crushing poverty, they don't give a shit about people, they give a shit about power and this is a lever they've been yanking on to get it for years.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  On one hand, you are correct in that the right is more reluctant to use governmental power to improve society. That's in part because they put more emphasis on personal responsibility, and in part because they are skeptical of the government's competence. On the hand, I think the right has done more than they usually get credit for. Median real wages rose significantly under Trump. [1] Nixon created the EPA. [2] At an individual level, conservatives donate significantly more to charities, and give blood more often. [3] [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-...