Roe no mo?

[Coriolis]

And I am telling you that your solution ends with the court that can brake the rights of a majority. Especially since that is now evidently the case (and in some cases it evidently broke the ones of minorities in the past). This is exactly why I said over and over that genuine education is foundation of everything (and then add every mechanism that I named). Because if people can sum 3 and 3 you don't have to micromanage them like a bunch of idiots (and probably fail at that). What means that in this case you live with less of stereotypical bureaucracy and absurd mistakes. Plus if you give people healthcare as human right and a few key social programs they will become less hateful. You as a nation are constantly into micromanaging stuff without backup and therefore you are all chocked and stressed. So in my opinion your propositions will never truly turn this around. You have to solve this by starting from some other angle. You can have the court but that isn't really the top component in fixing this.


After all if people aren't on the level a single court can't fix that, as a matter of fact there are decent odds that they will simply twist it. Since fundamentally this is just a tool that can chop both ways. So in my subjective opinion that institution is too powerful and people can hardly effect it (it can go completely unchanged for many years). As I said I have similar court but it isn't that powerful and multiparty system places more weight on a dialogue rather than decree. Plus I am not sure that yours has become political recently, that institution is deeply political by it's very nature. What is because searching for moral highground is deeply within your culture. What is fundamentally ok but when it becomes cartoonish it becomes counter productive. Since that path leads into micro-management and loop of frustration. And at that point you probably start to lose contact with idea that perhaps your methodology is either wrong or incomplete.

I agree that there is no substitute for education. Ours is not the only country that uses a constitutional court as a check on its legislature, though. The principle is sound, but like anything else, it is only as good as the people who comprise it. Also, the court is meant to be a last line of defense, not a daily participant in the nuts and bolts of lawmaking. They are supposed to cry foul when the other branches cross the line, which should be much less often than they have in recent years.

Frankly, some of this is also tempered by the situation people find themselves in. There is only so much money and energy and time in the pie for most people, so people will prioritize the things they feel most necessary for day to day survival. Some things are easier to do than others, but basically here is where the affluent win out yet again because their commodities include money and time. Get someone working two jobs just to pay rent and raising kids and skimming by without money for medical expenses, and see how much time they have to invest in "changing the system" when their efforts feel negligible; no, what happens is that they basically just wing it and deal with it if it suddenly becomes a priority (i.e., they find themselves pregnant). Yet sadly they are probably the people most likely in need of these kinds of rights because others with more affluence are able to skirt by with their resources.

Basically this isn't a high-concept situation where ideally if you dislike a law, you can devote unlimited resources towards fixing it without suffering elsewhere. (It's kind of the problem with the "if you hate the system just get out there and vote" admonition -- which obviously is something one should be doing, but it's not nearly so simply esp in light of voter suppression techniques and the larger sacrifice some have to make in order to just cast their single vote.)

People invest their resources into whatever is troubling them directly at the moment at best.

(Frankly people are also either willfully or blindingly stupid about situations they have not personally experienced. Once it happens to them, then suddenly they are motivated because they can empathize.)

On the one hand, I understand what you are saying, that people just struggling to make ends meet have little time and energy for activism. On the other hand, we see the world over where ordinary people in just as pressing circumstances risk much more to ensure basic rights and opportunities for themselves and their children. Sure, they should not have to do this, but that assumes a world as it should be rather than as it is.

You have no doubt heard the slogan "freedom isn't free". Usually this is spoken in military settings, where the cost in mind is the lives of our service members. We all bear the cost of maintaining our freedoms, though. They may be God-given, as the founders envisioned, but are constantly under attack from one quarter or another. The rich, with their greater resources, have a greater responsibility here, but everyone needs to do their part. Another slogan that applies is "democracy is not a spectator sport". Your comment about willful stupidity about situations outside someone's personal experience definitely applies. The hassle of simply trying to cast a vote in some places is enough to deter many who should be at the polls, but pales in comparison to the "hassle" of a problem pregnancy, or supporting a LGBT child in a hostile school or community. Women won the right to vote in part because of the efforts of working class women who still found the energy after a day of factory work and an evening of domestic duties to meet, organize, and together take action. Same for the strides we have made against race-based impediments to voting, progress that is now in jeopardy. Not everyone can step up this way, but those who can are doing a service for us all. The cost of doing so can be high, but the cost of not doing so is even higher.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I agree that there is no substitute for education. Ours is not the only country that uses a constitutional court as a check on its legislature, though. The principle is sound, but like anything else, it is only as good as the people who comprise it. Also, the court is meant to be a last line of defense, not a daily participant in the nuts and bolts of lawmaking. They are supposed to cry foul when the other branches cross the line, which should be much less often than they have in recent years.

Ok, but who will intervene when the court crossed the line ? This is why I don't like the decree stuff of this kind. True, others have this institution as well but they don't have your political system or landscape. Therefore in that context this is perhaps too powerful for an institution. Plus others as far as I know are regulating abortion through laws and legislature. What Roe wasn't from what I understand.

 

[Coriolis]

Ok, but who will intervene when the court crossed the line ? This is why I don't like the decree stuff of this kind. True, others have this institution as well but they don't have your political system or landscape. Therefore in that context this is perhaps too powerful for an institution. Plus others as far as I know are regulating abortion through laws and legislature. What Roe wasn't from what I understand.

Roe basically says that the government may not limit abortion, at least up to fetal viability. It is not making regulation, but rather determining what degree of regulation, if any, is permissible. The Constitution does provide for removal (impeachment) of SCOTUS judges, though the standard for that is quite high. I think it has been done only a couple of times. Since judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the congress, we can hold them accountable for who they put on the court. The problem is, so far, we haven't, though many religious fundamentalists overlooked Trump's personal immorality and voted for him because of exactly this issue.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Roe basically says that the government may not limit abortion, at least up to fetal viability. It is not making regulation, but rather determining what degree of regulation, if any, is permissible. The Constitution does provide for removal (impeachment) of SCOTUS judges, though the standard for that is quite high. I think it has been done only a couple of times. Since judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the congress, we can hold them accountable for who they put on the court. The problem is, so far, we haven't, though many religious fundamentalists overlooked Trump's personal immorality and voted for him because of exactly this issue.

I know, that impeachment is possible with judges. However that isn't business as usual and your whole system is heavy on status quo. Therefore this requires more gentle everyday solution to balance since everything can be twisted. Especially since for someone that might be the normal.

 

[ceecee]

Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide

Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state, grant constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classify abortion as a homicide crime.

www.reuters.com

This means the GOP in Louisiana will criminalized contraceptives, IVF, and miscarriages and it took 3 days. Again, you can kindly fuck off if you still think this is about saving babies.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide

Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state, grant constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classify abortion as a homicide crime.

www.reuters.com

This means the GOP in Louisiana will criminalized contraceptives, IVF, and miscarriages and it took 3 days. Again, you can kindly fuck off if you still think this is about saving babies.

And the question is where they will stop. There is plenty more in the terms of education, gay marriage etc.

 

[Hellena Handbasket]

And the question is where they will stop. There is plenty more in the terms of education, gay marriage etc.

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

The comments came after a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that a majority of justices were considering overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.statesman.com

Anyone who thinks this will stop at abortion, i’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona I will sell you cheap.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

The comments came after a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that a majority of justices were considering overturning Roe v. Wade.

www.statesman.com

View attachment 26072

Anyone who thinks this will stop at abortion, i’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona I will sell you cheap.

No surprise there. They hate education and by destroying it for the most part they basically doomed the country. Which lost plenty in global competitiveness due to that. Today even if you want to get the jobs back you often can't since there is no required workforce. Since the era when you can learn any job in 2 months are over. Today you often need decades of specialized education to get real experts. Which are vital for economy and global position. But to the people who are still mentally in 19th century they don't get it. That education is the very foundation of economy and any kind of success. Without that you have typical 3rd world country.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Joe Biden names first Black, openly LGBTQ White House press secretary


This can't be a coincidence.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

The way to prevent both scenarios - majority oppressing minorities, and a minority gaining the upper hand over everyone - is to lay out a comprehensive list of fundamental rights that cannot be denied to anyone, regardless of which group(s) they belong to. Our Constitution does a pretty good job of this, especially as amended, surprising when one recalls that it was written at a time when women, blacks, and many other groups were excluded, implicitly if not explicitly. Constitutions aren't worth the paper they are written on, though, unless they are enforced. The world contains nations with admirable constitutions that are roundly ignored, doing no good for anyone except those who try to hide behind them as a sign of virtue. Debate often centers around the intent of the framers. On the one hand, their intent did not include women, blacks, etc. More broadly, however, their clear intent was to secure fundamental rights against any encroachment, especially by government, as they had experienced this first hand for years as British colonists. If the court operated from this principle, modified to include everyone as subsequent legislation has codified, they would rule very differently in many cases than they have.

Jefferson himself advocated for essentially scrapping and rewriting it every generation or so. Even then, some knew it would be imperfect and require change—within a couple generations, to say nothing of 2+ centuries. Jefferson almost certainly knew society circa 2000 would look as alien to him as society circa 1800 might to a person from 1600. He’d probably be surprised it took as long as it did for slavery to end (not that he exactly helped in that department) in the US. He saw rightfully the danger of binding future generations to past generations’ mores and attitudes. Such ancestral worship had led to countless past strife and revolutions before his time.

“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”

Originalists are a joke.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am curious, all midterm talks are usually about the federal level. But how it is on the state level ? You also choose the whole house and chunk of a senate ?
I mean if this will be up to the states in the future then these races will quickly gain in importance and focus.


2022 State Senate Elections Map
2022 State House Elections Map


Currently this is all very red, but if this decision triggers people there could be big shifts.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I am curious, all midterm talks are usually about the federal level. But how it is on the state level ? You also choose the whole house and chunk of a senate ?
I mean if this will be up to the states in the future then these races will quickly gain in importance and focus.


2022 State Senate Elections Map
2022 State House Elections Map


Currently this is all very red, but if this decision triggers people there could be big shifts.

It varies from state to state, I believe?

State level is oft overlooked but likely just as critical. Arguably more so. States control redistricting every ten years, so the party in power can arrange the districts to maximize their electoral capital in federal level elections

how people vote in federal vs state level elections can also be useful in identifying cultural patterns and trends as they relate to the electoral cycle.
It used to be common for people to vote split ticket. For instance, VA holds odd year elections, and for a while they would elect the governor from the party opposite the sitting president’s party (this pattern was broken when a democratic governor was elected during Obama’s administration). Old school moderates had no qualms about selecting one party’s candidate for President and the opposing party’s candidates for congress and/or state level offices. This is still sort of common in “purple states”, but slowly fading as the parties become increasingly polarized and centralized. But when you used to have sizable blocks of both conservatives and liberals within both parties in the past, and local party branches weren’t always in line with their national party platforms, it might have made more sense then to split tickets based on the candidates’ conservative/liberal lean more than the (D) or (R) next to their names, whereas Trumpism and Woke Progressivism (paired with greater consolidation of power at the national level of parties) have now made split tickets all but a thing of the past

it’s theoretically more easy for a party to have a “red” or “blue” wave at both state and fed level in the current climate

 

[Virtual ghost]

It varies from state to state, I believe?

State level is oft overlooked but likely just as critical. Arguably more so. States control redistricting every ten years, so the party in power can arrange the districts to maximize their electoral capital in federal level elections

how people vote in federal vs state level elections can also be useful in identifying cultural patterns and trends as they relate to the electoral cycle.
It used to be common for people to vote split ticket. For instance, VA holds odd year elections, and for a while they would elect the governor from the party opposite the sitting president’s party (this pattern was broken when a democratic governor was elected during Obama’s administration). Old school moderates had no qualms about selecting one party’s candidate for President and the opposing party’s candidates for congress and/or state level offices. This is still sort of common in “purple states”, but slowly fading as the parties become increasingly polarized and centralized. But when you used to have sizable blocks of both conservatives and liberals within both parties in the past, and local party branches weren’t always in line with their national party platforms, it might have made more sense then to split tickets based on the candidates’ conservative/liberal lean more than the (D) or (R) next to their names, whereas Trumpism and Woke Progressivism (paired with greater consolidation of power at the national level of parties) have now made split tickets all but a thing of the past

it’s theoretically more easy for a party to have a “red” or “blue” wave at both state and fed level in the current climate

Not too long ago I asked the similar question and I think it was Ceecee that said that the map is so red on the state level is because voters don't care too much about this. However this should put more focus on that if this topic will be sorted out by states. I am probably the first here that started to talk about local levels since a while back I realized how many various seats there actually is on my local levels. However from what I see in US there is a similar story, a ton of seats that no one ever really mentions. But they evidently pile into quite a power when summed. As I said if I were a republican I wouldn't have toyed with this. Since this has quite serious legal consequences for many people and it will surely trigger plenty of the none voters. Since now it seems that miscarriage can land you or people close to you into serious legal problems. And therefore it will be hard to say "I think I have something smarter to do on the election day". I am not sure this was a smart move even in political sense.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Not too long ago I asked the similar question and I think it was Ceecee that said that the map is so red on the state level is because voters don't care too much about this. However this should put more focus on that if this topic will be sorted out by states. I am probably the first here that started to talk about local levels since a while back I realized how many various seats there actually is on my local levels. However from what I see in US there is a similar story, a ton of seats that no one ever really mentions. But they evidently pile into quite a power when summed. As I said if I were a republican I wouldn't have toyed with this. Since this has quite serious legal consequences for many people and it will surely trigger plenty of the none voters. Since now it seems that miscarriage can land you or people close to you into serious legal problems. And therefore it will be hard to say "I think I have something smarter to do on the election day". I am not sure this was a smart move even in political sense.

Neither was letting the religious fundamentalists start dictating the party platform, as they did in the late 70s.

Really, you can pinpoint all of the current culture wars back to that point.

There was a time when moderate and progressive republicans were numerous. We can no longer hope for them to fix the GOP from within because they have all already either died off or been banished.

Two party system only comes close to working well when the parties are not so homogenized and aligned on ideological "left" and "right" lines. The old parties actually resembled the modern party coalitions that pop up in various European parliamentary systems, at least on a superficial level. National Party conventions tended to involve a lot of diverse philosophies and regional party chapters compromising and competing within the parties.

Conservatives served a much more useful purpose when they were roughly evenly distributed across the 2 parties and acted like actual conservatives should--being there to occasionally put on the breaks and encourage an actually conservative, cautious approach to decision and policy making (unlike the rash and authoritarian activist style of so-called conservatives today). Both parties work better with a blend of worldviews. I know that would seem to counter the need for parties in the first place, but then nothing about the American system has ever made a great deal of sense.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Neither was letting the religious fundamentalists start dictating the party platform, as they did in the late 70s.

Really, you can pinpoint all of the current culture wars back to that point.

There was a time when moderate and progressive republicans were numerous. We can no longer hope for them to fix the GOP from within because they have all already either died off or been banished.

Two party system only comes close to working well when the parties are not so homogenized and aligned on ideological "left" and "right" lines. The old parties actually resembled the modern party coalitions that pop up in various European parliamentary systems, at least on a superficial level. National Party conventions tended to involve a lot of diverse philosophies and regional party chapters compromising and competing within the parties.

Conservatives served a much more useful purpose when they were roughly evenly distributed across the 2 parties and acted like actual conservatives should--being there to occasionally put on the breaks and encourage an actually conservative, cautious approach to decision and policy making (unlike the rash and authoritarian activist style of so-called conservatives today). Both parties work better with a blend of worldviews. I know that would seem to counter the need for parties in the first place, but then nothing about the American system has ever made a great deal of sense.

This is why I like genuine multi-party system. Since in that one all those factions in both American parties would be separate parties. What means that you vote exactly for the flavor of right and left that you like. Plus everyone who wants to do politics has to be used to dialogue in order to reach that 50% of the seats (for some stuff you even need 2/3). Therefore often you get this cross left-right coalitions. Since mild left and mild right may be more drown to each other than to the their radical version. Also it can happen that for example light right and medium right don't want hard right in the mix. So they take medium left and/or independents as partners. Since light left right has problems with corruption or something like that. What can be good since that way you also get the stability of the right, but you get left wing element that fix healthcare system and add a few point in environment protection. What makes the whole system more adaptable to the random crisis since the governing isn't strictly left or right in the moment. Especially since voters have easier time picking the sort of apples they like.

Therefore such system is generally doing a better job in keeping the evident extremist out or at least under some control. Plus regarding sense: American system was very progressive when it was made, however since the centuries have passed some better solutions were developed. Multiparty system, snap elections ... etc.

 

[Coriolis]

Jefferson himself advocated for essentially scrapping and rewriting it every generation or so. Even then, some knew it would be imperfect and require change—within a couple generations, to say nothing of 2+ centuries. Jefferson almost certainly knew society circa 2000 would look as alien to him as society circa 1800 might to a person from 1600. He’d probably be surprised it took as long as it did for slavery to end (not that he exactly helped in that department) in the US. He saw rightfully the danger of binding future generations to past generations’ mores and attitudes. Such ancestral worship had led to countless past strife and revolutions before his time.

“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”

Originalists are a joke.

It is indeed surprising how enduring our Constitution has proven to be. The founders, intentionally or not, seem to have written it in general enough terms that it has adapted quite well to future generations, especially with the numerous amendments added over the years. If it is completely rewritten, I would want any future document to include the same basic liberties specified as it stands now. If anything, we could stand stronger protection of individual rights at least in the private sphere where they have been so fiercely attacked as of late.

Actually, I am going to start a new thread on this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It is indeed surprising how enduring our Constitution has proven to be. The founders, intentionally or not, seem to have written it in general enough terms that it has adapted quite well to future generations, especially with the numerous amendments added over the years. If it is completely rewritten, I would want any future document to include the same basic liberties specified as it stands now. If anything, we could stand stronger protection of individual rights at least in the private sphere where they have been so fiercely attacked as of late.

Actually, I am going to start a new thread on this.

The source of that is geography and very low number of neighboring countries. In other words there was no real need to reset the constitution and no one from outside has done that for you. However with time some adjustment have to be made, if anything simply that you maintain global relevance. Upon which you economy stands.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Neither was letting the religious fundamentalists start dictating the party platform, as they did in the late 70s.

Really, you can pinpoint all of the current culture wars back to that point.

There was a time when moderate and progressive republicans were numerous. We can no longer hope for them to fix the GOP from within because they have all already either died off or been banished.

Two party system only comes close to working well when the parties are not so homogenized and aligned on ideological "left" and "right" lines. The old parties actually resembled the modern party coalitions that pop up in various European parliamentary systems, at least on a superficial level. National Party conventions tended to involve a lot of diverse philosophies and regional party chapters compromising and competing within the parties.

Conservatives served a much more useful purpose when they were roughly evenly distributed across the 2 parties and acted like actual conservatives should--being there to occasionally put on the breaks and encourage an actually conservative, cautious approach to decision and policy making (unlike the rash and authoritarian activist style of so-called conservatives today). Both parties work better with a blend of worldviews. I know that would seem to counter the need for parties in the first place, but then nothing about the American system has ever made a great deal of sense.

Yeah in the 50s and 60s there was progressive Republicans that ran in Chicago and Illinois that were more progressive than the Democratic machine at the time.

Looking at popular vote totals for the Presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 is instructive.

You had a third party get a lot of votes. It's not clear if those all came from the Democratic side but I suspect this was largely the case. But this wasn't a Ralph Nader type third party. This was an outspoken segregationist and a Vietnam war hawk. By 1972 it seems likely that many of those people contributed to Nixon's high margins of victory.

Nixon only won 43% of the vote in 1968. It wasn't all that much, just more than Humphrey and Wallace.


Gosh what could have happened in the 60s to shake up the party landscape so much? I have no idea.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is indeed surprising how enduring our Constitution has proven to be. The founders, intentionally or not, seem to have written it in general enough terms that it has adapted quite well to future generations, especially with the numerous amendments added over the years. If it is completely rewritten, I would want any future document to include the same basic liberties specified as it stands now. If anything, we could stand stronger protection of individual rights at least in the private sphere where they have been so fiercely attacked as of late.

Actually, I am going to start a new thread on this.

The 10th amendment when read in full is very clear on the idea that just because rights are not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean they does not exist.

This is part of the original Bill of Rights.

I also find it interesting that so many people claim to support freedom yet seem to think some people have too many rights.

 

[Coriolis]

The source of that is geography and very low number of neighboring countries. In other words there was no real need to reset the constitution and no one from outside has done that for you. However with time some adjustment have to be made, if anything simply that you maintain global relevance. Upon which you economy stands.

We have had 27 "adjustments", aka amendments, made to the original constitution over the years, the most recent in the 1990's. I'm not sure how the low number of neighboring countries affects the content of our constitution. The US has seen substantial immigration over the generations, from all parts of the world, which makes our society far less monolithic than in many places. Still, people are people, and the policies and institutions we create are subject to the worst - and the best - of human nature.