Fresh Start Political Thread

What we continuously see, authoritarians hate to have their power checked.

Thank you Supreme Court

I feel like you're smarter than this.

It takes 9 months to go from an embryo to a living, breathing baby. This next part is uninformed but based on my very minimal research it takes 20ish weeks to get from the stage where it's just a bunch of cells to an actual developed baby.

If this offends you, just think about the millions of kids I've aborted prematurely. They died for my sins.

I believe human/baby/homosapien life begins at conception. That's the formation of my thinking on this matter. I'll leave it at that.

Note - Thanks for that image lol

I believe human/baby life begins at conception. That's the formation of my thinking on this matter. I'll leave it at that.

Note - Thanks for that image lol

I will also respectfully bow out, as we are not going to agree on this matter.

Apologies for my aggressiveness.

I will also respectfully bow out, as we are not going to agree on this matter.

Apologies for my aggressiveness.

Likewise. I'm probably the biggest asshole here on the topic of abortion. I earn a lot of what I get here on the subject.

https://www.insider.com/texas-abortion-ban-would-block-teen-raped-by-grandfather-2021-5

One last thing and I'm done with the subject. It speaks to the intentions of the writers of the law that a 13 year old girl who was raped by her grandfather would be denied an abortion under the new law.

This is just the start too - other conservative states are just going to copy Texas' law because SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with it.

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. The Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong decision” to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.

As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.

Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17943276/susan-collins-speech-transcript-full-text-kavanaugh-vote

Precedents ... what are they and how do they work?

I guess "precedents" will change whenever the bench changes.

Dangerous. SCOTUS is becoming a political football to be kicked around the field by whoever has the ball.

Likewise. I'm probably the biggest asshole here on the topic of abortion. I earn a lot of what I get here on the subject.

Other than this subject I don't have any beef with you, but at least we can respectfully disagree on this.

Can't believe "conservatives" here are having a discussion about when killing a baby is OK or not OK. Like there is some sort of magic drop-dead date.

......

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/02/25/abortion-the-overlooked-tragedy-for-black-americans/

Not all conservatives (I'd venture to say most) believe that human life begins at conception.

Went to a few sites, including Rueters and AP, to try to find some political news that a majority of both sides would agree on. Really couldn't find anything. No wonder why we seem way more divided than ever.

Just something to change the conversation to a different topic. This is about the Fair Tax/National Sales Tax.

I'm not promoting it, just an article I read:

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/35525/what-is-the-fair-tax/