Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:54:35 GMT -5
as to the blame game, blame Hillary for running the worst campaign for PResident in the last 40 years she had every advantage conceiveable, especially money overconfident, bad polling. she lost to a candidate half the nation couldn't stand While this is mostly true, it's also true that the GOP had recognized her as a serious threat as far back as the late 1990s and had literally spent 25 years running against her -- for at least 20 years the GOP had been casting Hilary Clinton as public enemy #1 among their base (think the 11 or 13 or whatever separate investigations of the Benghazi attack, all of which except maybe the first one were specifically targeted at finding something they could use to hang the attack on Hilary). So she had extraordinary negative polling numbers even before considering the large number of people who simply would/will not vote for a woman as President. Like Bernie Bros, you must be referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2022 15:55:40 GMT -5
Probably the unnamed ones who changed that language. But I'm also fine changing that to 'nondescript Democrats'. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2022 15:59:23 GMT -5
This decision doesn't talk about letting it go to the states. Just that that laws should be created by legislatures, not the courts. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.You think nothing of the specific phrasing "of each State"? I think that's the specific case in front of them. Nothing in this decision talks about whether Congress has the authority. Just that it should come from elected representatives. At least that's my reading of it. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:59:54 GMT -5
I am not surprised you find critical thinking “odd.” Critical thinking isn't odd.
Pretending you don't support the outcome of the critical thinking, is an odd thing to do.
Not pretending. Being able to argue for the other side is part of critical thinking. Makes your own arguments stronger. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:00:31 GMT -5
Every person who hates today's events, wasn't going to vote for the GOP nominee in 2024. They already weren't, and they still won't now.
Every person who loves today's events, wasn't going to vote for the Dem nominee in 2024. They already weren't, and they still won't now.
How many total people will actually change their vote, because of today?
I would guess we're talking like less than 1% of all voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Jun 24, 2022 16:01:41 GMT -5
Every person who hates today's events, wasn't going to vote for the GOP nominee in 2024. They already weren't, and they still won't now. Every person who loves today's events, wasn't going to vote for the Dem nominee in 2024. They already weren't, and they still won't now. How many total people will actually change their vote, because of today? I would guess we're talking like less than 1% of all voters. Truth |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:02:35 GMT -5
You think nothing of the specific phrasing "of each State"? I think that's the specific case in front of them. Nothing in this decision talks about whether Congress has the authority. Just that it should come from elected representatives. At least that's my reading of it. Nothing of that confirms that the justices want a federal law or state laws.
If there isn't explicit expression of one or the other, then it defaults to the defacto action that the ruling has.
Therefore, they support it going to the states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:04:00 GMT -5
They may or may not. But to pretend that today's decisions means they definitely won't strike down a federal ban, without a single ounce more of consideration for that today's actions defacto returned it to the states, is just a hysterical lie.
A decision to confirm a federal ban, is now exactly a decision to confirm taking away states rights in favor of more powerful federal government. Zero chance they'll just sweep that under the rug.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 16:05:00 GMT -5
You think nothing of the specific phrasing "of each State"? I think that's the specific case in front of them. Nothing in this decision talks about whether Congress has the authority. Just that it should come from elected representatives. At least that's my reading of it. Your reading is correct. “Citizens of each State” is just classic Constituional opinion language, reflecting how the founders saw the United States organized. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:05:39 GMT -5
I think that's the specific case in front of them. Nothing in this decision talks about whether Congress has the authority. Just that it should come from elected representatives. At least that's my reading of it. Your reading is correct. “Citizens of each State” is just classic Constituional opinion language, reflecting how the founders saw the United States organized. Indeed, classical language recognizing states rights. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 16:08:05 GMT -5
as to the blame game, blame Hillary for running the worst campaign for PResident in the last 40 years she had every advantage conceiveable, especially money overconfident, bad polling. she lost to a candidate half the nation couldn't stand While this is mostly true, it's also true that the GOP had recognized her as a serious threat as far back as the late 1990s and had literally spent 25 years running against her -- for at least 20 years the GOP had been casting Hilary Clinton as public enemy #1 among their base (think the 11 or 13 or whatever separate investigations of the Benghazi attack, all of which except maybe the first one were specifically targeted at finding something they could use to hang the attack on Hilary). So she had extraordinary negative polling numbers even before considering the large number of people who simply would/will not vote for a woman as President. In some ways, the GOP helped elect Obama in 2008 because they had spent so much of their resources the previous 10 years on running against Hilary Clinton. When Obama surprised them by taking the nomination away from Clinton, they were behind the game, because they had been all set to run the 2016 campaign. ok, so it does not change the fact she had a huge monetary advantage and basically threw away a win. if Hillary couldn't run a decent campaign, it's an indication she might not have been an effective President just like Trump could have won the 2020 election if he hadn't been such a huge A-hole and said so many baffoon statements that finally turned out 55% of the electorate. Now he's down from 45% to about 25%, however that 25% may have enough votes to have him run again right now, unfortunately everything is about blame. the pro-choice position needs to read the damn opinion, and act accordingly. which they basically knew that opinion anyway for 40 years and did squat nationally about abortion it's good news, this is democracy and legislators need to legislate if people just want to throw up their arms and say they can't do anything, well nothing will get done. there will be negative reaction in Texas, it's going to effect companies, CEO's are just cringing because instead of being the amoral profit machines they were designed to do, they are gonna get pressured to be even more political in the meantime, Congress will probably flounder |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 16:09:39 GMT -5
They may or may not. But to pretend that today's decisions means they definitely won't strike down a federal ban, without a single ounce more of consideration for that today's actions defacto returned it to the states, is just a hysterical lie.
A decision to confirm a federal ban, is now exactly a decision to confirm taking away states rights in favor of more powerful federal government. Zero chance they'll just sweep that under the rug.
Of course they won’t sweep it under the rug! But today’s opinion will have zero, or minimal, impact on that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 16:10:16 GMT -5
Your reading is correct. “Citizens of each State” is just classic Constituional opinion language, reflecting how the founders saw the United States organized. Indeed, classical language recognizing states rights. God, your desperation to be “right” is so cringe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:14:01 GMT -5
They may or may not. But to pretend that today's decisions means they definitely won't strike down a federal ban, without a single ounce more of consideration for that today's actions defacto returned it to the states, is just a hysterical lie.
A decision to confirm a federal ban, is now exactly a decision to confirm taking away states rights in favor of more powerful federal government. Zero chance they'll just sweep that under the rug.
Of course they won’t sweep it under the rug! But today’s opinion will have zero, or minimal, impact on that decision. If not sweeping under the rug, then by definition it would have significant impact on that decision. 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:14:48 GMT -5
Yep, knew I was right on the classical states right language.
Pretending the other person is wrong with zero effort, confirms it.
|
|
