POLITICS Random Political/Legal

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    This court has damaged itself for more than a generation.

    NorrisAlan likes this.
  2. juicemane

    juicemane Member

    The post-truth rot has fully set in.
    HCKevinSteele likes this.
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    There you go being critical of courts. You're in contempt.

    Do you want to be fined an arbitrary amount of money, or confined for an arbitrary amount of time?
  4. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Boy was I wrong. Jay, IP Uni, Emain, etc. tried to warn me but I did not listen. First you said that if Trump lost the election that he would not leave. Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine an American President trying to execute a coup. Never could I have imagined so many around him willing to aid and support his coup attempt. Never could I imagine so many Americans following his cult and attacking our foundation of democracy. Never could I imagine Leaders of the party not condemning the activities but downplaying and still supporting the treasonous activities.

    Then you said that a conservative Court would reverse RvW. I said that you were being alarmist. I believed them when they swore under oath that RvW was established law.

    We are living in Bizzaro World and I don't like it.
  5. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I will never understand those that still make excuses for Trump. Ever.
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You weren't alone in thinking that the court wouldn't reverse it. I thought it was settled law, and they were just doing the dog and pony show to appease politicians.

    But, nope. They weren't...

    Nothing is beyond them, now. Whether they do or don't, they've shown they can and might. All it takes is a majority of believers, nothing more.
  7. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    Me either.
  8. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    The American nation is a social contract. For some, breaking contracts is a means to an end. When a large segment of the population finds it acceptable to break the contract, the institutions fade to mere convention which can be departed from.
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I truly wish you were right and I was being alarmist.
    gcbvol and NorrisAlan like this.
  10. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

  11. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    And, today's ruling erodes the establishment cause a little further, as it did with last week's ruling, too. Piece by piece.
  12. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Guess it is time for me to officially found my religion.
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  13. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Do you think there is a state that would outlaw interracial marriage? Maybe I'm naive, but interracial marriage doesn't really seem like the same point of contention that abortion has become. What percentage of the US population do you think supports a ban on interracial marriage?
  14. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    His point is that by the logic laid out, it would still be bannable and never should have been made unconstitutional.
  15. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    I get it his point.

    The difference is that abortion is still a pretty hotly contested issue. Interracial marriage is not. So use the same logic to throw out Loving v. Virginia, and watch as nothing changes and no states outlaw interracial marriage. Again, unless I'm just being naïve, there is little to no support amongst the US population to outlaw interracial marriage.
  16. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    But you think it would be constitutional to do so, if you think banning abortion is constitutional.
  17. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    In other words, if a state like Mississippi decides to ban interracial marriage and it passes, that would be completely constitutional and legal.
  18. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Sure. And it's also far more likely, in my opinion, that the country would ratify a Constitutional Amendment, despite the difficulty in doing so, legalizing interracial marriage, before any single state would attempt to ban it by law.

    Because it's not an issue any more.
  19. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It's not about the topic, it's about the reasoning.

    A due process argument is a due process argument. A due process argument about gay marriage is a due process argument. A due process argument about interracial marriage is a due process argument.

    The topic doesn't matter when the argument is the same.
    SetVol13 likes this.
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Abortion wasn't the only thing brought up, you're focusing in on the one thing that you object to.

    There are four others, all under the same umbrella. So don't make it about abortion.

    Make it about all of them, or none of them.

Share This Page