POLITICS Random Political/Legal

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

  1. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    The thing I'm saying won't be done is states outlawing interracial marriage. You're saying that people are saying it should be done. Who is saying that? Point to an elected official of any consequence. Singular. One. I don't think one would really matter, but I also don't think one exists.

    That post doesn't answer the question. You've been saying everything is based on due process, so everything must go if one goes. That doesn't make sense if the one that went was not based on equal protection in the same way that one or multiple of the others were. It's a different clause.

    I don't care if one Justice is saying marriage has to be revisited. That means [uck fay] all. Show me where Obergefell is based on the Equal Protection Clause in a similar way to Loving. I don't think you can because I don't believe it is. That doesn't mean a future ruling couldn't push it that way.

    As much as people want to pretend that these justices are all insane, bible thumping righties, the record doesn't reflect that. Are we forgetting that Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers gay and transgender people?
  2. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    We get it, you don't want to have the conversation.
  3. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    I am conversing. I shared a link from a law school discussing Roe v. Wade from an equal protection standpoint and you are dismissing it because the ruling didn't discuss it... which is the whole [uck fay]ing point regarding all the equal protection stuff being undermined.
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The post 100% answers the question. Completely. It's the same damn amendment, dipshit.

    All elected officials are of consequence, and you were shown one that said it was based on should. One justice is enough. There are only 9 of them. One opinion on equality does not mean that they won't overturn something else. I doubt Neil thinks women aren't equally able to make medical decisions--but he just took one away.
  5. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    You're right. Same amendment. No need to reference the separate clauses. They did it for no reason whatsoever. Sheesh.

    Said it was based on should? What? I'm telling you to show me a politician saying that interracial marriage should be outlawed by a state. That video did not show that.

    Ah, good. Now we are getting to what the abortion discussion is actually about.
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    When someone talks about religious freedom, do they say the "religious clause of the 1st amendment," or do you just hear 1st amendment? When you hear talking about assembly, do you often hear "assembly clause of the 1st amendment," or do you just hear 1st amendment? It was absolutely done for a reason--but not a logical one. Not a consistent one. It was done so that hypocrisy and idiocy could be propped up by idiots like you--because you are the target audience of every stupid decision made in government.

    So you think he's saying the same thing as me, while disagreeing with me? How exactly does that work?

    And just what exactly do you think the abortion discussion is actually about? Because I think it is about a bunch of [uck fay]ing morons dictating dumb things to sovereign people, simply because it makes them upset, despite not being a damn bit their anything.
  7. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Yeah, I read what you posted. I get it. People have made arguments in the past that abortion should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. But it isn't. It might be in the future, but it hasn't been and isn't now. Which makes it fundamentally different from Loving, which IS protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

    That's why I'm dismissing it (dismissing is probably too strong of a word). Because hoping and wanting doesn't make it a thing.

    Feel free to post more pictures and pretend I'm not responding to you in a worthwhile way.
  8. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Who gives a [uck fay] how people talk about this stuff? Most people don't know shit about this stuff. I can read in Loving where the majority opinion cites primarily the Equal Protection Clause and secondarily Due Process as basis for the decision. I don't think you know what the [uck fay] you are talking about.

    You said if they get rid of one decision (Roe) that was based on the Due Process Clause, they are hypocritical if they don't get rid of the others.

    You said that. He said that.

    He did not say "State(s) should pass laws banning interracial marriage." So when I ask for an example of an elected official saying that, you don't get to point to this guy. Because he's not saying that.

    It's about when a fetus becomes a human and how we balance a pregnant woman's right to choose what she does with her body with the rights of the fetus that at some point becomes a human inside her.
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It matters because when there are rulings that are not broken up by clauses, other rulings broken up by clauses are on shaky ground. You have it in your head, for some reason, that because a section of the 14th amendment won't apply, that another section of the 14th amendment will apply. I don't know why. I don't know what basis you have for this claim. I don't know why you would maintain this claim, even after a Supreme Court Justice said that rulings based on both claims can be challenged. I don't know why you've decided that because one is mostly in one clause, and not another, like this is some kind of fractional thing, that that supersedes the written, in a legal opinion, views of a Supreme Court justice, who has been doing this for a long, long time.

    He doesn't have to say it, it amounts to the same thing--pure, complete, idiocy. It is pure, complete, idiocy to allow states to choose whether same sex marriages should be allowed. It is equally pure complete idiocy on interracial. If one is done, they should both be done. But at the end of the day, neither should be done. I'm saying that. This guy isn't. So yes, I get to hold up him as someone who believes something opposite of me, because his believe can lead to something idiotic. Even if it doesn't--it can.

    It is not about when a fetus becomes a human. At all. Because only US citizens have rights according to the Constitution, and SCOTUS rulings, and nothing is a US citizen until birth. So there you go champ. US citizen rights trump non-US citizen rights.
    IP and SetVol13 like this.
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Something has bothered me about your barking about elected officials, but I couldn't think of what until now.

    But now I have: defend referendums.
  11. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    Lol, yes. "Pretend."
  12. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    Also, he keeps repeating that a fetus at some point becomes a human in the womb. That is factually false for certain in instances of miscarriage or severe deformity, but these abortion bans do not differentiate that.
  13. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Please point to where I've said anything about how a woman should be forced to carry a non viable fetus to term. I'll wait.

    Again, I've said we can talk nuance. You want to make me and others out as though our stances on these things are radical. They aren't. I'm not advocating for full scale, across the board, from conception, no exception abortion bans.
  14. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    I'll circle back on the rest later today. Don't have time to to get to it now.
  15. utvol0427

    utvol0427 Chieftain

    Off to fetch some chicken?
    fl0at_ likes this.
  16. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    Any abortion ban that doesn't specifically spell out what is unlikable is doing that. Any time you say a fetus becomes a person at some point, you are doing that because that is not necessarily so.

    There is not nuance in the anti choice movement. The laws are there, without nuance. Many of the people like you say this, but are not acknowledging that the laws now in place and being written are in fact written without exception or nuance.

    And bill that discusses a "heartbeat" is not nuanced.
  17. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    By allowing states to choose, you are advocating for that, because it allows a state to choose that.

    It doesn't matter whether you personally believe if some should be accepted or not.
  18. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    That's my problem with it. I, personally, think using abortion as a form of birth control is terrible. However, like you said, there's no nuance to the laws, they'll blanket ban and women will die because of it.
    SetVol13, gcbvol and fl0at_ like this.
  19. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I don't like it. We don't live in a perfect world. Putting the choice to the individual is the only compromise. The only one.
  20. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    I don't believe the "birth control" rhetoric around abortion. People are not having quarterly abortions to manage their family planning

Share This Page