Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[LinekersLegs]

that Stephen G. Breyer fella tho, 84 yo ? he a republican?

Nope, Bill Clinton appointee. Will retire at end of term

Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term - SCOTUSblog

Justice Stephen Breyer, a devoted pragmatist and the senior member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, will retire from the court at the end of the 2021-22 term, NBC News reported on Wednesday. During a nearly 28-year career on the court, Breyer shunned rigid approaches to legal interpretation, oft

www.scotusblog.com

Judge Jackson will take his place

Ketanji Brown Jackson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Upon being sworn in, she will be the first black womanand the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

My father worked over 20 years for this day. Maybe this post was a bit too far but it was a day that my family dreamt about.

You, your family and the politicians that speak for you are all full of sh1t

If this was to do with life, or protecting “babies”, the US would have universal medical care, childcare, parental leave, free daycare, free education.

Conservative states and their representatives would be doing anything, EVERYTHING they could to lower the African American maternal mortality rate.

It has nothing to do with life, or children, and everything to do with control.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Two is generally considered to be a greater number than one, at least if you aren’t a WUM.

I don't think this is a good way to look at it. I know plenty of conservative, Christian women who were in support of what happened yesterday. Granted, that is largely because of where I have spent the last few decades.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It's an ideological issue. It's about the proper role of the state. It's about the ability of one group of people to criminalize the behavior of another. We do that with things like rape, murder and theft because those behaviors harm others. We really shouldn't be doing that the rest of the time. This is why men who are sitting on the fence should care, despite not having a dog in the hunt directly.

What we have in this country is a whole host of people who want to tell other people what to do with their bodies. Liberals want to be able to ban smoking, but also favor access to safe and legal abortions and marijuana legalization. Conservatives prefer the reverse. This is nuts, in both cases. Banning any of those things creates problems. The proper role of government here is to regulate all of those things in such a manner that the only harm people can do through any of those choices is to themselves.

If we all could agree to get out of other peoples' lives insofar as it is possible, the railroad would run a lot smoother.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You do realize that more female SCOTUS justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade than voting in favor?

What a weird statement

 

[Deleted member 48881]

looks like many Americans are now worried about civil war

 

[LostLegend]

I liked Doug Stanhope’s take:

“If a foetus is a ‘living thing’ growing inside you, then so’s a genital wart. If you try to get yours removed I’ll picket the hospital and tell you to ‘stop playing God’”

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

"Others". What is the gender of these "others" you speak of? Women?

A foetus has two parents. In some cases, abortion is a decision made by a couple, not just the woman alone. So it doesn't leave men unaffected...

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this more a discussion between religious and secular people. Not between men and women.

It really makes you wonder about this 'supreme court' system and it's use.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I don't think this is a good way to look at it. I know plenty of conservative, Christian women who were in support of what happened yesterday. Granted, that is largely because of where I have spent the last few decades.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It's an ideological issue. It's about the proper role of the state. It's about the ability of one group of people to criminalize the behavior of another. We do that with things like rape, murder and theft because those behaviors harm others. We really shouldn't be doing that the rest of the time. This is why men who are sitting on the fence should care, despite not having a dog in the hunt directly.

What we have in this country is a whole host of people who want to tell other people what to do with their bodies. Liberals want to be able to ban smoking, but also favor access to safe and legal abortions and marijuana legalization. Conservatives prefer the reverse. This is nuts, in both cases. Banning any of those things creates problems. The proper role of government here is to regulate all of those things in such a manner that the only harm people can do through any of those choices is to themselves.

If we all could agree to get out of other peoples' lives insofar as it is possible, the railroad would run a lot smoother.

Smoking bans (mostly in public rather than blanket - and I’m not aware of any notable liberals, and CERTAINLY not a majority, who are in favour of a blanket ban) are in place in many countries in the world, and it’s because second hand smoke directly harms others - just as you wrote in your second paragraph.

I’d have no particular problem with banning SMOKING marijuana (though i believe the second hand smoke from it is far less damaging than that from commercial tobacco). Edibles are way better anyway.

 

[LinekersLegs]

If we all could agree to get out of other peoples' lives insofar as it is possible, the railroad would run a lot smoother.

We’ve just had the concealed carry case and Roe overturned.

Thomas is openly suggesting that Griswold, (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex intimate relationships) and Obergefell (gay marriage) are all revisited so that idealized world looks even more unlikely in the next couple of years.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

The absolute state of America. I feel for the genuine US posters on here, surrounded by people like @emir

 

[catcherintherye]

A foetus has two parents. In some cases, abortion is a decision made by a couple, not just the woman alone. So it doesn't leave men unaffected...

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this more a discussion between religious and secular people. Not between men and women.

It really makes you wonder about this 'supreme court' system and it's use.

It affects a womans body. It's her losing bodily autonomy.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[catcherintherye]

looks like many Americans are now worried about civil war

View attachment 171295

To be honest, if you remove people's right to bodily autonomy, you should go to war for that.

The judges who made this decision, need to face consequences for their actions. We all know what those consequences should be as well.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Smoking bans (mostly in public rather than blanket - and I’m not aware of any notable liberals, and CERTAINLY not a majority, who are in favour of a blanket ban) are in place in many countries in the world, and it’s because second hand smoke directly harms others - just as you wrote in your second paragraph.

I’d have no problem with banning SMOKING marijuana. Edibles are way better anyway.

There are ways to solve the secondhand smoke problem. They cost money, which is why we don't implement them. IMO, the only reason that your average liberal in the public eye doesn't express a preference for banning smoking outright is because they're smart enough to know it isn't feasible under present political conditions. They lie about their sincere preferences because they know it's counter-productive to express them.

We’ve just had the concealed carry case and Roe overturned.

Thomas is openly suggesting that Griswold, (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex intimate relationships) and Obergefell (gay marriage) are all revisited so that idealized world looks even more unlikely in the next couple of years.

I wholeheartedly agree that we're not headed for a more libertarian social agenda any time soon. All I'm getting at is that if we took a more libertarian approach to social policy while ignoring what the libertarians have to say about economic issues (because Samuelson proved them dead wrong, with math, about seventy-five years ago), we probably would have a lot less conflict in this country.

To put that another way - I can prove to you that we need strong, independent government agencies that are not corrupt. I can prove that the market isn't going to solve the problems agencies like the FDA, EPA, SEC and state insurance regulators exist to solve, and that collectively we are harmed at the expense of a few if they fail at those jobs. It is impossible to prove that you shouldn't be doing whatever it is you prefer to do with your body, so long as you're not exposing kids to whatever you're doing or engaging in dangerous behaviors like drinking and driving as a consequence.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

We need more of these. Hopefully people expose some of these hypocrites

I would love to see his response to that