4 ms·

So it's more important to you that common law not exist than it is for the Supreme Court to make rulings based on religious ideology? Are you really going to p

So it's more important to you that common law not exist than it is for the Supreme Court to make rulings based on religious ideology? Are you really going to pretend not to understand why this ruling came now, when the religious right just so happened to be in charge of the Supreme Court, and not at any other time in the past 50 years?

yieldcrv 4y ago
I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress. I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  You "understand" and "think it is noteworthy" and "observe", but what do you "feel" about the people who've lost freedom today, because of the observable fact that this primarily happened due to the religious beliefs of the new members of the Supreme Court? Not caring about the people for whom the system is designed for is exactly what makes this such a monumental problem. If the system doesn't work for the people it's designed to work for, it the outcomes don't reflect their will, then it's a broken system. If this is the "correct" way, then the system might need to be torn down and rebuilt, possibly violently. Consider that as you avoid empathizing with those affected.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    I empathize with people that expected the option of one set of services and won’t have that.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      And I'm sure that empathy is comforting to those who will now die because their miscarriage can't be handled in a medically sound way. Possibly less so to their loved ones, some of whom may act violently in response to a system that killed a person they care about. I doubt they're going to care meaningfully about which legal mechanism it was that would have been most appropriate to use to allow their loved one to live.
      - yieldcrv 4y ago
        That is a consequence of Congress not doing its job on this topic for 50 consecutive years. Contact your state and Congressional representations and find legislative candidates that are as passionate on this topic as you are, if there arent other causes you are more passionate about that different candidates care about of course.
        TameAntelope 4y ago
        Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        As I also mentioned in my first reply to you, the topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all. It is accurate that several judges lied to Congress during their nomination process and we do not have remedies or sanctions for that. (That are deemed politically rational)
        TameAntelope 4y ago
        It's not a red herring, as it demonstrates that the protection via the Supreme Court was not in any jeopardy of failing to function, as it has successfully protected women's rights for over 50 years.

yieldcrv 4y ago

I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress. I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.

TameAntelope 4y ago
You "understand" and "think it is noteworthy" and "observe", but what do you "feel" about the people who've lost freedom today, because of the observable fact that this primarily happened due to the religious beliefs of the new members of the Supreme Court? Not caring about the people for whom the system is designed for is exactly what makes this such a monumental problem. If the system doesn't work for the people it's designed to work for, it the outcomes don't reflect their will, then it's a broken system. If this is the "correct" way, then the system might need to be torn down and rebuilt, possibly violently. Consider that as you avoid empathizing with those affected.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  I empathize with people that expected the option of one set of services and won’t have that.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    And I'm sure that empathy is comforting to those who will now die because their miscarriage can't be handled in a medically sound way. Possibly less so to their loved ones, some of whom may act violently in response to a system that killed a person they care about. I doubt they're going to care meaningfully about which legal mechanism it was that would have been most appropriate to use to allow their loved one to live.
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      That is a consequence of Congress not doing its job on this topic for 50 consecutive years. Contact your state and Congressional representations and find legislative candidates that are as passionate on this topic as you are, if there arent other causes you are more passionate about that different candidates care about of course.
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        As I also mentioned in my first reply to you, the topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all. It is accurate that several judges lied to Congress during their nomination process and we do not have remedies or sanctions for that. (That are deemed politically rational)
        TameAntelope 4y ago
        It's not a red herring, as it demonstrates that the protection via the Supreme Court was not in any jeopardy of failing to function, as it has successfully protected women's rights for over 50 years.