Desperate Democrats Now Want To Place Term Limits On Supreme Court Justices
This is how they fight, if they can't cheat it, cheat bigger. FDR won unconstitutional social security by threatening to pack the court till it ruled for him, and they have never looked back, making the SCOTUS into a joke, since there is no "conservative" or "liberal" parts of it, so why is every judge one of those labels? It has been corrupt for hundreds of years, where criteria was political, not knowledge....
I can name some that should have been impeached.
That said, the traitorous Democrat Party is far worse and due partly due to TDS has gone bat out of hell completely crazy. The other part of "partly due" is what has become an insane wanton lust for absolute power.
"I can still remember a time when we didn't want to admit to political litmus tests." So, it is ok to have such tests, as long as you admit to them?
Think of this: it is ILLEGAL to use religion as a basis of qualification for any office. Yet both sides have been doing it for over 40 years just on the abortion thing.
Think about this too: If the abortion thing is so important to either side, why has it not been done the Constitutional way and proposed as an amendment to the Bill of rights or Constitution, vice making laws with no basis in either, and then asking the court whose job it is to use both documents as guides, to rule on it? Even race is addressed in the Constitutional law package. Yet both parties have made law and counterlaws to fight their war on the American people. Creating the legalistic charade that exists where they can do anything to us, and find some convenient "law" that supports it.
Packing the Court is just another attempt to ram their agenda down the peoples throats. If they are so sure they know what we want, then do it the right way and add it into either document, otherwise, they need to all shut up and go away, which will never happen till they are all in jail.
SCOTUS Legislating is THE problem, on both sides. On one side there is almost only abortion. On the other there is ... everything else!
Anyway, I wish to add I disagree with willy-nilly abortion on demand. I think labeling the natural gestation period of our species a "parasite" or "rights violation" is absurd. Nothing religious or mystical about it. I figure a civilized people holds the life of all its members in high esteem and doesn't extinguish that on a whim, even if that life is going through the natural gestation period. Some may create "rules" about when that life is allowed to be called human, but they are just opinions. If there is an error involved in any decision, I figure the only way to be sure, to be safe, is to err the side of protecting life itself. Don't need religion to do that. Could there be rare exceptions? Sure, but be very careful on how they are addressed.
1. Woman's responsibility to ensure protection (vs man's). What about rape?
2. Fetal transplant, forced on the woman because?
3. Demonstrate that abortion is murder.
3 days after ovulation, the embryo ball is ~16 cells. 16 cells is NOT a human. It is not until two weeks later there is any semblance of a heart or brain. This is still not a human.
We are going to argue and argue, and then we are going to find out...you have a religious basis for arguing conception is the beginning of life, and we are going to agree to disagree. However, a religious basis for beginning of life has NO PLACE in legislation, just like not eating pork or women wearing stupid clothes.
However, I'm so happy you offered the definition of parasite. Now we all know that people camping on welfare and nursing government jobs are no parasites. Whew! I always thought they were.
!. It is her body she has to protect. Rape is an exception as she has no ability to protect herself.
2. Fetal transplant is not forced, one of several options, and probably less impact-full, physical and emotional, than abortion to the woman.
3. A fetus is human and alive, To abort is murder!
https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rand...
Not to say that she "get's to be right" because she is Ayn Rand. However, it is another argument relatively well-supported.
If abortion is murder, then how does rape justify murder of a third party innocent of the rape?
If a fetal transplant is not forced, then carrying to term and abortion are the other options. If you force transplant or full-term, then it is force. Using force against a person requires SIGNIFICANT justification. You can start by explaining how 16 cells is a human that is murdered if they are destroyed, and if justifies FORCING a woman against her will.
16 cells. I'm waiting, and I still bet it comes down to religion.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
The who debate is summed up here in definition 1. What is the meaning of "unlawfully" ? It can be moral, or religious, or legal law. This has been the whole argument for the last 100 years, whose law? Gods, satans or mans? Like it or not, there are a lot of people who believe in the Judeo Christian (and hence American foundational law) that "Thou shall not kill". Of course that does all fall apart with exceptions for food protection, survival, etc. So we get into this endless circle of arguments. But killing a baby post birth, and calling it lawful (New York) is an abomination and murder that I would hope anyone can debate at that point it is a human being.
BTW, the assertion needing support is showing that 16 cells is a human, not that killing a human is murder. I scratched a nasty bug bite this am, and killed several hundred, perhaps a thousand cells with my own DNA. Was that suicide?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...
I agree with respect to religion being separate and irrelevant from interview for office ...
... except that some choose to legislate from the bench using their religion as a position. Abortion if the key issue affected today.
Antone Scalia was religious, but he set that aside, and took a strict Constitutional view when he voted. He was great. Gorsuch is similarly excellent, having sided with liberals on some Constitutional issues. Others, less so. No good answer for how to deal with that bias, other than just ask a question about how one would vote...
I wonder if there's just no way to have a distant central gov't that takes over a quarter of your income and has vast powers and have it run well. I thought, maybe naively, that we had a good court system. It's just the gov't has its hands in so much.
The problem is that one side of SCOTUS is interpreting the Constitution. The other side is Legislating from the bench. The Constitution as a "living document" is fundamentally flawed. If all the justices were just trying to be fair, impartial and reading the law as written, abortion would be legal (since there is no basis against it that is not religious), and many ridiculous present and planned firearm laws would be struck down by the Second Amendment. Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?
As for Justice (seems to be it is becoming something of a joke), the Democrats philosophy is that if you can change the laws of the land by Constitutional means, then you must do it from the bench (totally outside of the Constitutional limits). Interpreting the law as opposed to making law without the mandate of the people, is a theft of our democracy and a death knell of the Republic. Dems (sorry for being so partisan) have embraced that approach to seizing power via any means necessary. That is the reason that FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court (and failed for the most part) and that is why the modern day dems (who have seen their power severely crippled of late) are trying to do the things they are including their aversion to the Constitution and the protections our people are entitled to.
This is also the reason that this upcoming (and possibly the last democratically held) election is so important on many philosophical and legal levels. There are people who were never taught the intricacies and wisdom that went into the drafting our that great document, only the propaganda that is designed to take away whatever freedoms we now enjoy! Vote wisely and be well!
It is an unbelievable position. They would not support this same approach if the interpretation went the other way, but we are on the brink of a totalitarian mess.
The assertion that 2, 8 or any reasonable 2^n number of cells is a human life is indefensible. It is not self aware (My dog has more to give up). It can not survive without 100% support from another human. Two cells are a human, nope. Not a chance.
The only way forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted birth makes ethical sense is a contract. Where she is paid for her efforts (time, inconvenience, health damage, lost wages, etc.) AND another agreed to take custody and fully support the child. Even then, it should be her choice. She is the only “Contributor” affected.
Then it really wouldn't be force. It's a mutually beneficial agreement. If you contract to build a building but decide you don't want to, the court tries to make everyone whole. They get the buyer's money back plus any damages from the builder flaking out. They don't crack a whip and force the builder to work. (I know you are not supporting gov't force.)
Obviously not the mother. Hopefully not me. We have more than enough total people in the world, perhaps too many already.
Maybe this is a place Religious Republicans press for more taxes, both to pay for carrying the child to term, child birth, and raising them. They could set up a disciplined structure to bring the child up in that increases their number, and they can counter the immense growth in the welfare-left population.Make sure the bill include the words: private institutions, disciplined and responsible so future administrations don't use it like LBJ.
I do not understand the details of the Constitutional arguments, but I never understood why the issue must come down to religion or what it has to do with privacy. In my non-expert view there is a non-religious argument that fetus has some properties that give it interests that must be protected by law. If we don't have incubator technology to keep the fetus alive, though, then we have to use gov't force on the mother to protect the fetus' rights (assuming the fetus has them, which I know is debated). These rights come into conflict if the mother wants the fetus removed, wants a medical treatment that would possibly harm the fetus, wants to do a job or other activity that puts the fetus at risk, or even wants to ignore a doctor's recommendation of bed rest. It seems like the rights are in conflict, and I err on not having government use force. I am ignorant of the details of how the Constitution and existing case law interact with this difficult issue.
" Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?"
Yes. If we followed it according to my lay reading of it, the fed gov't would be much more limited.
... and religion has no place in legislation, or in this case the "interpretation" of legislation. Even Scalia understood this.
I kill more than 32 cells every time I play soccer. We kill smarter, more self-aware things every time we swat a mosquito. We kill immeasurably smarter and more self-aware things every time we euthanize a dog, which we do for convenience much of the time, with an justification that the animal was suffering...
The law is being obeyed and for the moment the Democrats might obey it for a change.