Politics

psu_dad
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:47 am

At least 2 more liberal justices are on the doorstep of leaving, aren't they?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 150 but she has expressed no intention to retire.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

LioninVa
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:51 am

I know some weak minded folks who feel that same sex marriage legislation is a threat to their heterosexual lifestyle; as if it was a requirement or something. Granted, this is not the majority opinion, but those idiots exist out there.

Now, Trump did say during the campaign that he wanted justices that would overturn Roe v Wade. I think he will nominate along those lines. Assuming confirmations goes through, now you have a conservative majority across the board; not moderate to occasionally align with the more liberal justices. Remember, the president doesn't send cases to the SCOTUS; the come up through the lower courts. What's to stop a state from passing a law now, knowing it will go to the top court with more than a decent chance to be upheld? I think that is the fear.

Blue&White
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:57 am

sameoldlama wrote:Not sure I get the fear - Trump has said multiple times he considers marriage equality "settled law" and at most thought it should be decided at state level. When pressed he generally says it's not a priority and wants to talk about jobs, trade, border. So unless the left decides to provoke him on the issue I can't see him pushing for a change.

I would hope the Rs are smart enough to figure out if they haven't been able to overturn Roe vs. Wade they certainly don't have the public (i.e. voter) backing for this and to even court the idea will just bubble up embarrassment candidates like Roy Moore and give voice to the nut job element in the party / constituency - they should be just happily allow the left to keep occupying that spot. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Not a single person I know that supports Trump thinks that challenging marriage equality should be done - absolutely do not care. If he pursued this instead of staying focused on trade, security, jobs, taxes I believe his base would actually be pissed.


I think this misses the point entirely. It doesn't matter if Trump makes over turning gay marriage or Roe v. Wade part of his agenda. Overturning those legal precedents are absolutely the agenda of many of the people who support him. You think evangelicals look the other way at his infidelities and general non-Christian behavior becauase they have suddenly had a change of heart on these issues? I don't. I think they do it it because they believe that in Trump they finally have what they crave - a President who will put justices on the on the court who will reverse the precedents that stopped them from having the ability to shit on all the groups they disapprove of.

Whether or not the Trump administration actively pushes those agendas or involves themselves in any potential legal procedings (and it's unlikekly the Supreme Court would hear a case on either matter between now and January, 2020), Trump's decision on his appointee is very likely to pave the way for challenges to those issues. And, if you think he doesn't know that I think you are completely fooling yourself. He made a deal with the evangelical community and he's going to all he can to deliver it.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:06 pm

There was an excellent PBS/Frontline documentary on the passage of the ACA. In the early days, Obama led the Republicans to believe he would support a bipartisan bill and held several meetings with their leadership. Later, it became apparent he could get a Democratic bill passed without Republican cooperation. He invited the Republicans to his office and told them he didn't need them and they could pound sand up their bum. He didn't use those words, of course. He's a politician. But he pointed out that the Democrats won the election and "elections have consequences".

Elections have consequences. So be it.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

Nat@PSU
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Nat@PSU » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:24 pm

psu_dad wrote:There was an excellent PBS/Frontline documentary on the passage of the ACA. In the early days, Obama led the Republicans to believe he would support a bipartisan bill and held several meetings with their leadership. Later, it became apparent he could get a Democratic bill passed without Republican cooperation. He invited the Republicans to his office and told them he didn't need them and they could pound sand up their bum. He didn't use those words, of course. He's a politician. But he pointed out that the Democrats won the election and "elections have consequences".

Elections have consequences. So be it.



Didn't agree with the sentiment with Obama and don't agree with it now. If this is the approach we take the pendulum will just keep swinging back and forth more and more violently until it hits a ressonance that tears this country apart.

We may very well already be there.
- Nat

Let's Go State!!

psu_dad
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:33 pm

If this is the approach we take ...

If?
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

Nat@PSU
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Nat@PSU » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:36 pm

Nat@PSU wrote:
We may very well already be there.



I guess I should have said if this is the approach we CONTINUE to take.
- Nat

Let's Go State!!

Blue&White
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:59 pm

Elections have consequences. So be it.

Ineede they do. In this case it's the potential of the infringement of rights of millions of people.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:05 pm

If that happens (and let's hope it doesn't) it will happen by the same random process by which the rights were originally granted. Nine people in fakakta robes will disagree about the protections provided by the Constitution. And because 9 is an odd number, one side will prevail.

It's an insane system. But we're stuck with it.
Fire Alex Cora. (On hold pending further review)

LioninVa
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:11 pm

It's a perfectly logical system. An odd number guarantees a victory one way or the other at the top level. That does not, however, make it perfect. Or, in many cases, even good. Kind of like the electoral college and communism; they look good on paper but don't seem to function that way when humanity gets involved.