He pretends like he doesn’t see me. F him. I watch all his shows. I’m gonna talk to him
He sees you.
He pretends like he doesn’t see me. F him. I watch all his shows. I’m gonna talk to him
What if a smaller populace leads to better overall well-being in each individual?Abortion, besides being immoral, it’s also a terrible idea. Once the MSM and right people start demonize it, public perception will change. Governments are going to need to incentivize births, not allow people to abort babies.
Hypothetical, the year is 2050 and AI has consistently taken jobs. The population is starting to decline and birth rates have plummeted. Getting women out of the work force and having children would be a win-win.
🤣🤣🤣. 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.You are operating under the misconception that judges and legal scholars follow some sort of rigid logical process. They do not. Things change. All the best SCOTUS decisions in history were radical when they were written. Fetal personhood will be radical when it is written, too.
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?Scalia is dead.
That's why they are still working to put people on courts all over the country, including SCOTUS.Right. But if proponents of fetal personhood couldn’t even find an ally in him, where are they going to find one?
So who are the judges being put on courts who subscribe to this theory, such that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional within a decade?That's why they are still working to put people on courts all over the country, including SCOTUS.
Doubtful. Back when essentially the entire population farmed for a living it was impossible to imagine anyone having a job with industrial farming.Because AI doesn't just replace the grunts. It also replaces the people who organize the grunts, as well as the people who manage the organizers, and ultimately, the people who set policy for the managers. With truly competent AI, no jobs are necessary.
I said a couple of decades. Give it time.So who are the judges being put on courts who subscribe to this theory, such that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional within a decade?
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.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.
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.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.
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.What if a smaller populace leads to better overall well-being in each individual?
I feel a very high degree of confidence that this day will never come.I said a couple of decades. Give it time.
The jobs you can't conceive of, the AI is already better at them.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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 unbornI 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.
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.The jobs you can't conceive of, the AI is already better at them.
Yeah. I was hoping that some of the more moderate Indiana Republicans would oppose the bill they passed here - in favor of one that just established a time limit.
But I’m sure they feared a backlash from Republican primary voters who would go right after any R who voted against a wholesale ban on abortion. The exceptions they included don’t really count for much…and even those were controversial.
They just can’t help themselves. They’re like a mirror image of Dems in states like California and Oregon.
But for many “being reasonable” is the same as being complicit in ending a human life.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).
Abortion, besides being immoral, it’s also a terrible idea. Once the MSM and right people start demonize it, public perception will change. Governments are going to need to incentivize births, not allow people to abort babies.
Hypothetical, the year is 2050 and AI has consistently taken jobs. The population is starting to decline and birth rates have plummeted. Getting women out of the work force and having children would be a win-win.
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?
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.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.
Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy, but the courts invariably live up to it eventually.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.
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
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.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).
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.
Opinion: America is doing better than the media or our politicians tell us. Here’s proof.
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.I don't think Trump's position is as much a problem as others in the party.
Why is it an absurdity?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.
Well, I don’t agree with that either.Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy, but the courts invariably live up to it eventually.
Okay, but history disagrees with you.Well, I don’t agree with that either.
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.I don't think Trump's position is as much a problem as others in the party.
I stopped reading at "while IANAL."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.
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?Okay, but history disagrees with you.
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.
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.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.
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.