Economic hellscape -- I wish everyone would read this
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
What if a smaller populace leads to better overall well-being in each individual?
🤣🤣🤣. I tell him what he should slash from his line up and what he should double down on
He sees you.
I don’t think it’s a misconception at all. I think the misconception is that they don’t.
Even Antonin Scalia poured a bucket of cold water on this notion. And he was probably the most outspoken opponent of abortion to have sat on the court since Roe.
Scalia is dead.I don’t think it’s a misconception at all. I think the misconception is that they don’t.
Even Antonin Scalia poured a bucket of cold water on this notion. And he was probably the most outspoken opponent of abortion to have sat on the court.
Right. But if proponents of fetal personhood couldn’t even find an ally in him, where are they going to find one?
That's why they are still working to put people on courts all over the country, including SCOTUS.
So who are the judges being put on courts who subscribe to this theory, such that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional within a decade?
Doubtful. Back when essentially the entire population farmed for a living it was impossible to imagine anyone having a job with industrial farming.
Creative destruction growing the job market is undefeated and you’d be foolish to bet against it.
AI is a different kind of destruction. By its very nature, it doesn't just make your job obsolete, it also makes your boss's job obsolete. You have nowhere to go.
And gradually over time you and your boss will take on different jobs, the manner of which we probably can’t even conceive of yet.
That would mean we switched to Bitcoin as the unit of account. The current debt based system needs more people. So, I’m down with that part, but birth rates still need to be above 2.1 to maintain current population.
I feel a very high degree of confidence that this day will never come.
Again, the arguments against Roe were well-founded — because the arguments for it were easy targets.
As I’ve asked many times about Roe, how often did you come across somebody who defended that decision by citing the grounds and reasoning? For me, it was rare. What I almost exclusively saw were arguments for the outcome and its ramifications - basically an appeal on the merits of abortion being legal and any restrictions against it being undesirable, cruel, misogynistic, paternalistic, etc.
So I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. Doing away with Roe wasn’t really all that heavy of a lift. There were gobs of legal scholars who made well-constructed arguments against it, over decades.
I’ve seen a legal argument made on behalf of fetal personhood. But it was flimsy and incoherent - and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I haven’t seen other ones.
All those statements are true. Where you are naive is thinking any of them matter. Roe wasn't overturned because the opposition made good points. Roe was overturned because the opposition spent decades putting together the court system that would overturn Roe. They will do the same with personhood.
I think you’re assuming that everybody is outcome oriented when it comes to judiciary matters - that everybody follows Thurmond Marshall’s philosophy of “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” - a formulation that literally casts judges as creators of law rather than than interpreters of it.
But not everybody subscribes to that philosophy.
Again, the arguments against Roe weren’t just well-grounded, they were quite old and pretty commonly held. They were never a fringe argument like fetal personhood is.
I’ll ask you again to name some judges (or even future possible judges) who have advocated in favor of this view?
If you’d have asked me to name ones who had advanced arguments against Roe at some point in their careers 20, 30, or 40 years ago, I’d have been able to without breaking a sweat.
So…yeah, opponents of Roe were ultimately successful because they made sound arguments. If they hadn’t have made sound arguments, they wouldn’t have been successful.
IM SUNDAY FUNDAY DRUNK!!!’n. shouldn’t weigh in in light of same but fetal personhood isn’t a novel concept in the law. Some states already recognize the fetus or unborn child as a victim of wrongful death in the tort arena. Under the code a bad guy who has been found guilty of harming a child in utero can be found guilty of a 2nd crime distinct or separate from that of harming the mom. Both of these contemplate/recognize the independent legal rights of an unborn
Ish
Last edited:
If that were true, those jobs would never be generated, you would just point the AI at a new function. Doubtful either of us live to be proven correct. But I am correct.
If it weren’t for their stance on this issue, I’m convinced it would be a rout, even with Trump. Obviously they aren’t going to change, but it’s such a toxic issue and there would be agreement if they were willing to be more reasonable with regards to time frame and exceptions (though those tend to be overblown).
But for many “being reasonable” is the same as being complicit in ending a human life.
SC, don't you think some decisions should be decided by a person's own conscience along with their spouse in matters such as abortion.
Granted there is a future person involved, or a baby from the point of conception. Again the status of this baby, or fetus, is a matter of conscirnce and not a matter of those who happen to an elected representative in a blue or red legislature concerned about not having enough people in the workforce.
While IANAL, as far as I'm concerned it was a simple matter of applying Griswold to the question of abortion. If you want to argue about finding "rights" where there are none, look at Griswold.
Of course, no one wants to do that. To claim that Griswold is faulty would mean that states should be allowed to legislate if/how/should persons engage in family planning, which is an absurdity. When states overreach, the courts will rein them in, and will find their justification. Had Connecticut not tried to legislate conduct in the bedroom, we may never have had Roe v. Wade.
Hoot, of course people should be able to make decisions based on their own conscience, but killing humans isn’t one of them. Abortion is dumb, immoral, and should be outlawed in any decent civilization.
Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy, but the courts invariably live up to it eventually.
CPI dollars exclude food and energy … lies, damn lies, and statistics apply here.But when people ask if they are better or worse off than four years prior… they feel this
This has rose colored glasses.
I don’t think so. Trump’s position on abortion is down the middle and he’s said numerous times he’s against a national ban.
I don't think Trump's position is as much a problem as others in the party.
He actually did try to shift away from the party a bit. He's not very good at it, of course. But it's probably also not possible at this point. The GOP spent far too much capital to become the pro-life party to just wish it away in a few short years. Going to take a long time to wash that off.
Why is it an absurdity?
I absolutely do think Griswold is preposterous. And you are correct that it was the pretext for Roe.
I think it would be an absurdity for a state to prohibit birth control. But I most certainly do not think it’s an absurdity that they could - because there’s nothing precluding them from doing so in the text of the Constitution.
We seem to have this disconnect frequently — that if something strikes most people as governmental overreach, then it therefore must somehow be unconstitutional.
This aptly demonstrates my point about people defending Roe not on its constitutional underpinnings, but on the desirability of the outcome.
And I say that as somebody who thinks not only that a state has no business prohibiting birth control, but also that abortion should be legal.
There’s no basis in the law giving Congress the power to either enact a national abortion ban or to preclude states from regulating abortion as they see fit.
So many people seem to think that Congress has virtually unlimited powers. They do not. And I’m hopeful that the justices on the Roberts court will prove to be as deferential to that limitation as any court we’ve had since the New Deal.
Having such a court was pretty much the only reason I put on a hazmat suit and voted for Trump in 2016. The Interstate Commerce Clause isn’t a constitutional cheat code - but it’s been treated as such for nearly the past century.
I stopped reading at "while IANAL."
But seriously, legal cases rarely have one rationale to justify a result. So it's entirely possible to say states should stay out of regulating family planning because of some constitutional principle/rationale, just not the one the Court used in Griswold.
Mm, I don’t know. When was the last time we had a court majority that consisted of judges who take a textualist approach to their duties?
I’m reminded of Justice Barrett’s confirmation hearings when she felt compelled to remind Senators that passing laws was their job, not hers. That was such a refreshing thing to hear.
Griswold, too, came up in ACB’s confirmation hearings. I think it was during Sen. Coons’ questioning - regarding her having said that she shared Scalia’s devotion to originalism.I stopped reading at "while IANAL."
But seriously, legal cases rarely have one rationale to justify a result. So it's entirely possible to say states should stay out of regulating family planning because of some constitutional principle/rationale, just not the one the Court used in Griswold.
And basically his question was going down the path of “So you think states should be able to ban birth control?”
Her answer was great. She said that in order to test that theory and revisit Griswold, a state would first have to actually pass a law affecting this for it to be litigated….and she found this (as I do) very unlikely and that, as such, it was an academic question.
I think Coons’ line of questioning, and Barrett’s answer, did a pretty good job of highlighting this disconnect I referred to above.
Saying a state is permitted by the Constitution to pass a law prohibiting birth control is a very different question than saying a state should do it, much less would.
We’re a long way from 1965. And it seems like it would require a lot of willful acts of political suicide for a state legislature to pass a law prohibiting birth control nowadays.
You are caught up in ideological terms that don't mean much in real life. Whatever people say, the court eventually pushes the law toward what they think is right. Slavery, civil rights, labor, religion, abortion, etc. The court goes where it wants to go, and it finds a way to explain it. It will continue to do that.
Well, all I can say is that I don’t find this to have been an issue thus far with the current court (or the one that preceded Justice Brown Jackson’s confirmation).
I can’t say that I’ve read every opinion they’ve issued. But I’ve read the big ones - and I think they’ve done a very good job of staying in their lane.
We can deal with what happens in the future as it unfolds.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Visit Primer: Indiana football set for massive recruiting weekend- Latest: Baller23Boogie