3 ms·

Except that the court relinquished its power to decide on these matters. It may not seem like it now to you, but it actually gains credibility by the courts, b

by starkd 4y ago

Except that the court relinquished its power to decide on these matters. It may not seem like it now to you, but it actually gains credibility by the courts, because they are not put in the middle of such a consequential decision. It allows the legislature to act. This isn't a power grab, but a relinquishing of power.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-... It is a powergrab. Christian conservatives have the Supreme Court. This was all planned. Don't kid yourself.
- starkd 4y ago
  What powergrab has ever relinquished power? It's literally the opposite of a powergrab. What power do Christian conservatives now suddenly have? This was a democrat party talking point to show supporters and fundraisers how indebted they should be for being "given" a right. No one owes any politician anything.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    What may I ask is your specific grievance with the Democratic Party, which you have twice in this thread incorrectly called the "democrat" party? You've clearly got some beef, so state it plainly.
    - starkd 4y ago
      My beef is with politicians in general. No one is indebted to a party, republican or democrat. But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it.
      - poulsbohemian 4y ago
        >But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Can you point to somewhere that Democrats have claimed to "give" rights? Democrats aim to "protect" rights, but the Constitution is where rights are enumerated and/or it is recognized that there are rights that may exist beyond what is enumerated. Further, if you were to read the party platform of the Democratic Party, you would see that protecting and enhancing rights is a fundamental core value. >Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it. It's "capitalizing" not "capitolizing" and it's not its state as a proper noun I was noting. The party is not "The democrats" or "democrat" it is the "Democratic" party. Sure, it's just words, but if you are going to repeatedly call out a party in a thread for some grievances, it's useful to call them by their actual name.
        starkd 4y ago
        You've lost the thread of the discussion. I said the reason the Democrat party is so protective of Roe v Wade is because its a cornerstone of their powerbase and how they give their supporters and fundraisers the impression they are giving them their rights. Not from the constitution, but from them, because nothing about abortion is in the constitution. If you read Roe v wade decision, you'll note they had to introduce the idea of a right to privacy, which also does not exist. From a purely jurisprudence perspective, its all built on smoke and mirrors. These issues were supposed to be settled in state legislatures, which is what the decision today asserts. Now, state legislatures are in a position to circumscribe abortion around cases where it is acceptable. It may be extreme to call it a life at conception, but it's also extreme to call it not a life right before birth. There's middle ground here.
afandian 4y ago
The supreme court can at least hide behind some abstract legal argument (spurious or otherwise). Much more concerning to me is the states who have enacted the actual bans with whatever passes for a democratic mandate. And it's that system which presumably will be the only tool that people have to protect themselves.

by starkd 4y ago

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-... It is a powergrab. Christian conservatives have the Supreme Court. This was all planned. Don't kid yourself.

starkd 4y ago
What powergrab has ever relinquished power? It's literally the opposite of a powergrab. What power do Christian conservatives now suddenly have? This was a democrat party talking point to show supporters and fundraisers how indebted they should be for being "given" a right. No one owes any politician anything.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  What may I ask is your specific grievance with the Democratic Party, which you have twice in this thread incorrectly called the "democrat" party? You've clearly got some beef, so state it plainly.
  - starkd 4y ago
    My beef is with politicians in general. No one is indebted to a party, republican or democrat. But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it.
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      >But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Can you point to somewhere that Democrats have claimed to "give" rights? Democrats aim to "protect" rights, but the Constitution is where rights are enumerated and/or it is recognized that there are rights that may exist beyond what is enumerated. Further, if you were to read the party platform of the Democratic Party, you would see that protecting and enhancing rights is a fundamental core value. >Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it. It's "capitalizing" not "capitolizing" and it's not its state as a proper noun I was noting. The party is not "The democrats" or "democrat" it is the "Democratic" party. Sure, it's just words, but if you are going to repeatedly call out a party in a thread for some grievances, it's useful to call them by their actual name.
      - starkd 4y ago
        You've lost the thread of the discussion. I said the reason the Democrat party is so protective of Roe v Wade is because its a cornerstone of their powerbase and how they give their supporters and fundraisers the impression they are giving them their rights. Not from the constitution, but from them, because nothing about abortion is in the constitution. If you read Roe v wade decision, you'll note they had to introduce the idea of a right to privacy, which also does not exist. From a purely jurisprudence perspective, its all built on smoke and mirrors. These issues were supposed to be settled in state legislatures, which is what the decision today asserts. Now, state legislatures are in a position to circumscribe abortion around cases where it is acceptable. It may be extreme to call it a life at conception, but it's also extreme to call it not a life right before birth. There's middle ground here.

afandian 4y ago

The supreme court can at least hide behind some abstract legal argument (spurious or otherwise). Much more concerning to me is the states who have enacted the actual bans with whatever passes for a democratic mandate. And it's that system which presumably will be the only tool that people have to protect themselves.