Okay, I was mistaken relying on memory about the US Senate. However, had HRC not thrown away the presidency by refusing to campaign in the midwest in the fall of 2016, this 'crisis' would be moot. Blame to go around to all the Dems? Yeah, that's more than fair. Laying all the blame on RBG – that's just pissing on her grave. :brow:

RBG was a spineless coward who, unwilling to abdicate power so as to cling on to it until the last possible moment, condemned women to ever more entrenched misery. She is of course not the only spineless coward among liberal heroes, but she was one nevertheless.

I'm certainly not laying all the blame on RBG. That would be absurd. Her culpability, however, is inescapable and I resent the hagiography that surrounds her, particular that which developed within the last decade of her life - spawned, in part due to her resistance to retire under Obama.

Maybe Breyer changes his mind. KJB still takes her seat as an Associate Justice. Stealth expansion. Probably not a good idea, but SCOTUS is already so compromised (since "Bush v Gore" at least), can't really hurt? Dems / Biden pathetically lack the spine to end the filibuster and expand the court, so ...

The personal sphere is private and not a proper object of governmental intrusion. — Bitter Crank

If the people judge that murder is taking place in private, then it's most definitely a governmental issue.

reversible vasectomy — jorndoe

:fire:

Why not go for the full transformation with hormone therapy, sperm bank and castration? Reduce all that testosterone fuelled crime, and completely end unwanted pregnancy. A small price to pay for huge social benefit. Imposing it on immigrants would do a lot to solve that problem too.Foreign tourism would be reduced, mind, unless it became a destination of choice for women...

And the reduction in population would be good for the environment.

Whether they want abortion in their communities. — frank

Should they also get to decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities?

The problem, to the extent there is one, is that the US Constitution does not unequivocally provide a right to abortion and the American public is deeply divided over the issue, resulting in the election of Presidents who will appoint Justices sympathetic to their cause.

If the issue goes back to the democratic process, and abortion is made illegal, you needn't blame RGB or the Supreme Court, but you can blame John Q. Public, which is really where blame ought to lie.

Republican party: plans a coordinated assault on abortion rights for decades with hundreds of millions of dollars with of funding and organization at the highest levels of power.

Democratic party: completely fucking useless and exist only to ensure that there is no left challenge to corporate power, and otherwise happy to advance Republican politics as their own, only with a few more rainbow flags.

Voting and political activism in general: completely de-fanged and also largely useless.

Population at large: supports Roe.

I-Am-Very-Smart Person: "This is the people's fault".

Males that don't express they want children, yet are interested in sex, get a reversible vasectomy (or something to that effect). — jorndoe

If you think this way, why not go all the way? Once they express interest in sex, it's already too late. Better to make it a practise as soon after birth as possible, just like circumcision. And forget about reversibility, slip an elastic band on as soon after birth as possible, like they do with bull calves. Masculinity is the scourge of humanity (maybe this should be in the Putin thread). Go back to Plato's Republic, only the genetically superior babies (created in a lab in the modern day) will be allowed to see the light of day. (Nazism?)

Why not go for the full transformation with hormone therapy, sperm bank and castration? Reduce all that testosterone fuelled crime, and completely end unwanted pregnancy. A small price to pay for huge social benefit. Imposing it on immigrants would do a lot to solve that problem too.Foreign tourism would be reduced, mind, unless it became a destination of choice for women...

And the reduction in population would be good for the environment. — unenlightened

This is the kinda "solutions" AI come up with!



By the way, I know you were just trying to be funny! :smile:

Should they also get to decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities? — Michael

Fair Housing Act

Should they also get to decide whether or not that act be repealed so that they can decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities?

Should they also get to decide whether or not that act be repealed so that they can decide if they want homosexuals or black people in their communities? — Michael

Of course. It's called democracy.

Of course. It's called democracy. — frank

The majority doesn't have the right to oppress the minority.

The majority doesn't have the right to oppress the minority. — Michael

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules.

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules. — frank

But why should they? Presumably, because people deciding for themselves how they want to run their communities is a 'good' thing? So if they make a decision, in doing so, that is a 'bad' thing, it's something of an own goal, no?

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules. — frank

So you don't see a problem with a majority who decide that slavery is acceptable?

So you don't see a problem with a majority who decide that slavery is acceptable? — Michael

What alternative do you propose?

What alternative do you propose? — frank

Not allowing the majority to decide that slavery is acceptable, and not allowing the majority to decide that abortion isn't acceptable.

But why should they? — Isaac

The "should" comes from a particular community's commitment to democracy. It's not for everyone.

The "should" comes from a particular community's commitment to democracy. It's not for everyone. — frank

What I mean is that you think we should follow democratic decisions, yes? Or are you just telling us how democracy works?

What I mean is that you think we should follow democratic decisions, yes? Or are you just telling us how democracy works? — Isaac

Generally speaking, Americans have a deep seated devotion to democracy. Are you asking why that is?

Generally speaking, Americans have a deep seated devotion to democracy. Are you asking why that is? — frank

No. I'm asking why you think it ought to be?

To be clear -

How and why things are the way they are: A matter for experts - if I want to know I'll read a book.

What people think about how things ought to be: Not a matter for experts, if I want to know I have to just ask people.

Abortion rights in America date to 1973, when the high court by a 7-2 vote declared that a constitutional right to privacy, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, covered a woman's right to end a pregnancy. — CNN

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. — Justice Samuel Alito (conservative)

Lemme get this straight. Abortion was legalized based on the right to privacy. Aren't Republicans/conservatives (the pro-life faction) staunch defenders of privacy?

:confused:

Something doesn't add up...or does it?

No. I'm asking why you think it ought to be? — Isaac

There's no reason they ought to be devoted. They just are at present. That may change in the future.

No. I'm asking why you think it ought to be? — Isaac


There's no reason they ought to be devoted — frank

Re-read, please.

Was there a point you were trying to make? Or did you just want a window on my psyche?

Was there a point you were trying to make? Or did you just want a window on my psyche? — frank

Mostly the latter. The point, such as it is, was that if one advocates democratic rule because they consider it a moral 'good', then there's a conflict when that democracy results in something which they consider a moral 'bad'. Unless, of course, a person has no moral goods other than promoting democracy.