Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
sturg33
I
Were you ever gonna get around to telling us why you posted this?
You do know why you believe what you believe, right?
Bingo. Foreign nationals do not have a right to influence another country's government.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Conservative philosophy. Trying to act like a 225 year old document can’t be expanded to fit the present day while a 2900 year old book can be expanded to always be relevant to every modern situation.
A lot of lives are going to be ruined by nosy religious people who can’t mind their own business about things who can’t concern them. I was talking to a friend. Maybe church services should be picketed like abortion clinics. I’d never use it but maybe we should exercise our 2nd amendment rights while being obnoxious because that’s protected. Maybe we should start going the right a taste of their own medicine.
A lot of lives are going to be ruined by nosy religious people who can’t mind their own business about things who can’t concern them. I was talking to a friend. Maybe church services should be picketed like abortion clinics. I’d never use it but maybe we should exercise our 2nd amendment rights while being obnoxious because that’s protected. Maybe we should start going the right a taste of their own medicine.
Tapate50
Well-known member
It appears so- they get the truth in the comments and ignore it completely. If it had been real by the OP, I’m sure they’d have come back pretty emotional and wanted to discuss the point.
Oh well-
You can lead a horse to water and all that
You don’t take someone with abdominal pain to L&D. That goes to ER, and treated there and the solution to her issue was an emergency not a delivery issue.
Apparently that went around months ago.
Congrats on falling for propaganda again. You sure showed us lol
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
This is really illustrative of the problem America is facing. Instead of taking a step back and trying to understand your opponent, find out where they're coming from and what is motivating them, and try to find common ground, people are deciding that the answer is to go even more extreme. We're locked in a game of one upmanship where people are viewing their opponents as evil instead of just Americans that might believe differently or want different things.
My advice is to be the one who tries to deescalate. Going more extreme will only drive your opposition to farther extremes and the opposition will not be completely ineffective at implementing their views. The more extreme you go the more extreme the wins of your opposition will be when they get them.
Whatever side you're on there are 80 million people who disagree with you. You're not going to push your opposition into collapse by outextreming them.
acesfull86
Well-known member
I’d defer to striker, but I don’t think the takeaway from the gun case was that states can’t pass their own gun control laws…they can, and they can be stringent, but they have to be objective. To get a concealed carry in NY, you could check all the boxes on the objective criteria, but then you had to satisfy the (unknown) subjective criteria of the person issuing the license, proving “need.” That was a system rife for abuse.
The thing is I do understand. My mother was southern Baptist and her family was into all that stuff. I grew up around peop,e who think that way. They say get to know people but sometimes it’s more like “familiarity breeds contempt.”
Fortunately my dad’ and his family are very different. I know all sides, I just firmly know which side I’m on.
To me there are two types of issues. On some we ultimately want the same thing but ultimately disaggregated on methods. I’m pretty open minded on those. However there are some issues we just flat out have different ideas about what we want the country to look like. There really isn’t any coming together on that. Honestly on the culture war I consider the term deplorable Hillary Clinton used to fit pretty well.
Two thirds of the country huh? That’s a lot closer to the number of people who support banning assault weapons or who opposed overturning Roe vs Wade.
This is an example of not understanding polls and how polls are intentionally vague to push a narrative that the left knows can't past legislative muster.
Why don't you go and find how many people support abortion past the second, and heck even the first, trimester? Your sides lies no longer work. The MSM doesn't have the hold it once had. People know what babies look like at 12 weeks. Take your outdates monstrous ideology elsewhere. It won't stand here in this country much longer.
When we take over in 22 and even moreso in 24 the country will reset itself back to before all you crazies got influence. You had your time and the country turned to **** under your watch.
sturg33
I
That's cool and all but the other side you hate so much has a say too... And rather than scream like a petulant child everytime you don't get your way, you can work on constructive solutions
‘ pretty Open minded’ is the political version of ‘I’m not racist but…’
Means they’re not open minded at all
That’s a fair point. I considered editing it to point out that I didn’t have a particular opinion on whether the ruling was just or not on the NY law. I meant it to be part of a broader point about why it feels a bit off to suggest that a Constitutional Amendment is the “right” answer, but using this case in particular might not have been wise.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Someone should come up with a way of editing the Constitution so that it recognizes women and other races, am I right?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Here's the the thing about the difficulty of passing amendments. It's supposed to be hard. That's a feature, not a bug.
As for the specific rulings, it's pretty simple. Keeping and bearing arms are recognized by the Constitution as rights given by the Creator to each of us. NY infringed on that, so they got slapped down. That's what's the Supreme Court is supposed to do when government refuses to acknowledge the rights recognized by the Constitution as granted by our Creator.
Access to abortion is not recognized by the Constitution as a right granted by our Creator, and it isn't listed as the responsibility of the federal government, so the Supreme Court correctly ruled that no branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court, could determine that access.
But again, there is a path to having abortion access recognized as a Creator given right. It's a path we've followed for the rights to privacy and worship and speech and bearing arms and voting and more. It's a system that has worked well to keep government from getting totally out of control and that has allowed us to correct the flaws of the original form of the Constitution. Just do that. Like was done for the rest of the rights.
But clearly you must see the issue with relying on Constitutional Amendments when the country has ballooned to 50 states and either side has at least 13 states to block basically anything in today’s age. I’m not saying it should be easy, but what you’re proposing is essentially impossible in today’s America. It’s not that I think you’re wrong about how things ought to be with respect to enshrining rights, but it’s basically all we have now.
As an aside, I find the argument that the Right to Bear Arms is a right granted by our Creator to be a bit fascinating. Arms even as recognized in the 18th Century didn’t exist in biblical times, and the ability to mow down a bunch of people at once doesn’t feel very Christian at first glance. What’s the theological argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Or for that matter, how does the Establishment Clause work as a right granted by a particular Creator? This isn’t a facetious argument, by the way. I am genuinely curious as to how we came to accept certain things as Godly and others when they were things that didn’t exist when we “heard from” God.