The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

[Hodad]

23 minutes ago, West said:

There's already laws that states you can't starve a child to death for example. This is not "oppressive to women" its just human decency to not intentionally harm a vulnerable human being. I just view life as beginning at conception thus its the responsibility of the mother to nurture the child begins in the womb and you cannot end its life. 

And yes it is. They justified slavery by claiming they were half human or whatever

Ah, there we are. ^^ "I just view life as the beginning of conception." Live vs living tissue vs personhood is always a rollicking conversation, but we can skip it. 

For the purpose of this conversation I'm happy to stipulate that the tiniest clump of cells is a person. Hell, why don't we go way off script and call it a citizen with full and equal rights to every other citizen. You're welcome!

But wait, does any other citizen have right to occupy space within another citizen? Do you, as a citizen, have the right to take the blood and tissue of another citizen? Do others have the right to take it from you?

No, of course not. But you'd have the state elevate the fetus to a sort of supercitizen, with rights beyond those of the mother. You'd make her subservient, with the state compelling her to give of herself, in violation of her physical sovereignty, to sustain another. 

Which is nonsense. If a woman doesn't want to nurture a fetus she should be able to evict it from her body with whatever force is required. Yes, the fetus will die without that support in the same way that people die without organ transplants and transfusions. But you wouldn't have the state stealing kidneys and draining unwilling victims of blood, would you?

As before, a mother's gift to nourish a child--born and unborn--is a wonderful and generous act. But there is no theory of rights compatible with our constitution that would compel a woman to do so. 

[Hodad]

34 minutes ago, User said:

Well great! I am glad we could finally agree that it is constitutional to overturn Roe v Wade. 

So, now you are a big Dredd Scott supporter?

Stare Decisis is a solid rule of thumb, not an absolute. Roe V Wade was one of the most overarching and egregious rulings in the Supreme Court's history. It went on to define generations of angst, hate, and discontent with the ruling, as well as numerous other rulings that had to be fixed as it was continually challenged in Court. 

 

 

We were never in disagreement. Not sure how you got that impression. 

I absolutely think this court is wrong, but my opinions are not empowered to create law.

Dredd Scott is a very superficial comparison, but more to the point it's entirely irrelevant to stare decisis.  Remember, it wasn't overturned by a court case or re-interpretation of the constitutional text, but by an actual constitutional amendment. 

[Hodad]

47 minutes ago, User said:

I missed that. My apologies. 

 

No worries. 👍

[West]

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Ah, there we are. ^^ "I just view life as the beginning of conception." Live vs living tissue vs personhood is always a rollicking conversation, but we can skip it. 

For the purpose of this conversation I'm happy to stipulate that the tiniest clump of cells is a person. Hell, why don't we go way off script and call it a citizen with full and equal rights to every other citizen. You're welcome!

But wait, does any other citizen have right to occupy space within another citizen? Do you, as a citizen, have the right to take the blood and tissue of another citizen? Do others have the right to take it from you?

No, of course not. But you'd have the state elevate the fetus to a sort of supercitizen, with rights beyond those of the mother. You'd make her subservient, with the state compelling her to give of herself, in violation of her physical sovereignty, to sustain another. 

Which is nonsense. If a woman doesn't want to nurture a fetus she should be able to evict it from her body with whatever force is required. Yes, the fetus will die without that support in the same way that people die without organ transplants and transfusions. But you wouldn't have the state stealing kidneys and draining unwilling victims of blood, would you?

As before, a mother's gift to nourish a child--born and unborn--is a wonderful and generous act. But there is no theory of rights compatible with our constitution that would compel a woman to do so. 

People rely on others at various points to varying degrees throughout their lifetime. We don't just murder our elderly as an example because they tax the health care system. 

Edited April 30 by West

[Hodad]

53 minutes ago, West said:

There's already laws that states you can't starve a child to death for example. This is not "oppressive to women" its just human decency to not intentionally harm a vulnerable human being. I just view life as beginning at conception thus its the responsibility of the mother to nurture the child begins in the womb and you cannot end its life. 

And yes it is. They justified slavery by claiming they were half human or whatever

Yes, the person responsible for the child cannot neglect the child. The difference is that the responsibility is transferrable. 

The state won't compel a mother to support a living child--she may legally transfer that dependent to another. <--yet another example of how you would elevate the fetus to a supercitizen status with rights to other people's resources far beyond those of born citizens. 

[West]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, the person responsible for the child cannot neglect the child. The difference is that the responsibility is transferrable. 

The state won't compel a mother to support a living child--she may legally transfer that dependent to another. <--yet another example of how you would elevate the fetus to a supercitizen status with rights to other people's resources far beyond those of born citizens. 

No the point is we have limitations on what you can and cannot do in many aspects of life. You cannot neglect a child because they are too needy, make you get bags under your eyes due to lack of sleep nor can you kill your elderly parent because their care home costs too much money. Should be same limitations on killing babies in the womb as well

Edited April 30 by West

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, West said:

People rely on others at various points to varying degrees throughout their lifetime. We don't just murder our elderly as an example because they tax the health care system. 

Correct. If the state want's to support and sustain the elderly, it's welcome to do so. But it also is not compelling individuals to do so. When granny is on dialysis, the state doesn't show up at your door to steal your kidney. When granny gets in a car accident and needs a transfusion the state doesn't show up with a syringe and drain your blood.

You'd probably find that an outrageous idea, but it's essentially what you're arguing that states should be empowered to do to women: that they should be compelled to surrender their own bodily sovereignty in order to sustain another body.

 

[User]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

We were never in disagreement. Not sure how you got that impression. 

I absolutely think this court is wrong, but my opinions are not empowered to create law.

Dredd Scott is a very superficial comparison, but more to the point it's entirely irrelevant to stare decisis.  Remember, it wasn't overturned by a court case or re-interpretation of the constitutional text, but by an actual constitutional amendment. 

OK... here are all the cases beyond Dredd Scott:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

[Hodad]

33 minutes ago, User said:

OK... here are all the cases beyond Dredd Scott:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

Yes, we all know cases have been overturned by later cases. Alito says as much to brush right past any obligation to stare decisis. But if you look at this list you should notice a few things. The first is the most of those cases are overturned fairly soon after, rather than upending longstanding decisions around which American life is built. And most of those cases are not affecting fundamental rights on a broad scale. 

Whether this court liked or disliked the holding in Roe, they have a responsibility to account for all the rest. Stare decisis isn't a binding rule, but it sure as hell is a reminder to the court why it should act deliberately and with due caution for it's role in American life. A reminder that something as fundamental as our constitution doesn't change every time a new ass lands on the SCOTUS bench. 

• Roe had been in place for 50+ years.
• Roe involves the rights to one's own body, the most private of private decisions.
• Roe directly affects over half of all American citizens.
• Roe--and the rights it protected--were VERY popular among the governed. 
• Roe was integral to American life and it would surely create meaningful chaos to overturn it.

If ever there were a case where stare decisis should have been given extra weight, Roe was it. And if it was to be overturned, it deserved a rationale more complete and compelling that Alito's dog's breakfast of an opinion. Instead this court rushed headlong to overturn longstanding law against that will of the people and in a manner that would be both disruptive and meaningly harmful to Americans.

The Federalist Society delivered as promised, but the irony should not be lost that an organization literally named for and grounded in judicial restraint has become the most activist court in living memory. 

 

Edited April 30 by Hodad

[User]

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, we all know cases have been overturned by later cases. Alito says as much to brush right past any obligation to stare decisis. But if you look at this list you should notice a few things. The first is the most of those cases are overturned fairly soon after, rather than upending longstanding decisions around which American life is built. And most of those cases are not affecting fundamental rights on a broad scale. 

Whether this court liked or disliked the holding in Roe, they have a responsibility to account for all the rest. Stare decisis isn't a binding rule, but it sure as hell is a reminder to the court why it should act deliberately and with due caution for it's role in American life. A reminder that something as fundamental as our constitution doesn't change every time a new ass lands on the SCOTUS bench. 

• Roe had been in place for 50+ years.
• Roe involves the rights to one's own body, the most private of private decisions.
• Roe directly affects over half of all American citizens.
• Roe--and the rights it protected--were VERY popular among the governed. 
• Roe was integral to American life and it would surely create meaningful chaos to overturn it.

If ever there were a case where stare decisis should have been given extra weight, Roe was it. And if it was to be overturned, it deserved a rationale more complete and compelling that Alito's dog's breakfast of an opinion. Instead this court rushed headlong to overturn longstanding law against that will of the people and in a manner that would be both disruptive and meaningly harmful to Americans.

The Federalist Society delivered as promised, but the irony should not be lost that an organization literally named for and grounded in judicial restraint has become the most activist court in living memory. 

 

This is a bit duplicitous. Roe V Wade was an awful ruling, instead of dealing with that, you want to argue that because it was awful for so long, then we shouldn't change it. 

Again, Roe V Wade is what caused 50 years of political strife and issues. It was a never ending battle to try to push state laws that constantly had to be retested in the Courts with specious legal reasoning and tests created and fabricated by the Courts. The Supreme Court made this a way of our life for 50 years by forcing Roe V Wade on everyone. Now, it is best left to the States. 

Even your take on the Federalist Society is disingenuous at best. Judicial restraint is returning to a world before Roe V Wade because it was the Supreme Court THEN that inserted itself into the case. Righting that wrong is a return to more judicial restraint. 

[West]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Correct. If the state want's to support and sustain the elderly, it's welcome to do so. But it also is not compelling individuals to do so. When granny is on dialysis, the state doesn't show up at your door to steal your kidney. When granny gets in a car accident and needs a transfusion the state doesn't show up with a syringe and drain your blood.

You'd probably find that an outrageous idea, but it's essentially what you're arguing that states should be empowered to do to women: that they should be compelled to surrender their own bodily sovereignty in order to sustain another body.

 

If the states want to place limitations on abortion they are able to do so. There are two distinct human beings involved 

[Hodad]

57 minutes ago, User said:

This is a bit duplicitous. Roe V Wade was an awful ruling, instead of dealing with that, you want to argue that because it was awful for so long, then we shouldn't change it. 

Again, Roe V Wade is what caused 50 years of political strife and issues. It was a never ending battle to try to push state laws that constantly had to be retested in the Courts with specious legal reasoning and tests created and fabricated by the Courts. The Supreme Court made this a way of our life for 50 years by forcing Roe V Wade on everyone. Now, it is best left to the States. 

Even your take on the Federalist Society is disingenuous at best. Judicial restraint is returning to a world before Roe V Wade because it was the Supreme Court THEN that inserted itself into the case. Righting that wrong is a return to more judicial restraint. 

Let's get real. The 50 years of political strife and churn had NOTHING to do with the quality of Roe. The bible thumpers just can't abide a woman's right to choose. They believe they are on a divine mission, so they won't take no for an answer. If the right to abortion had been added as a crystal clear amendment it would have been challenged over and over again in the exact same way. 

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/new_peer-reviewed_research_finds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html#!

John R. Lott Jr, author

Quote

Citing the ‘Crime Prevention Research Center’ as a reliable resource is extremely problematic. Despite the intentionally innocuous name it is not some neutral research organisation but the guns right advocacy organisation of John Lott's, author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’, ‘The Bias Against Guns’, and ‘Freedomnomics’. The titles give some hint as to the author’s biases, as does his position as a columnist at Fox news.

As someone who cares about statistics and their misuse, I would have hoped you would recognise the problems in how sources like the CPRC misrepresent the data. Charles Petzold many years ago provided an excellent summary of why the CRPC data, that you endorse here, is entirely misleading.

As he explains, the problems relate to a poor understanding of statistical significance:

The primary purpose of statistics is to help us understand various phenomena of the real world and possibly to predict what might happen in the future. How meaningful is the fact that Finland tops the chart with a rate of 0.369 mass shootings per million of population over a five-year period? Does it tell us anything significant about Finland? Does it mean that Finland is the mass shooting capitol of the world? How could it, with only two mass-shooting incidences in five years? Does it mean that Finland will continue to have two mass shootings every five years? Not necessarily. The numbers are too small to tell us anything.

Tiny numbers do not make good statistics. Yet, all the countries in this table (except one) experienced just three mass shootings or fewer. These are very tiny numbers and their statistical significance is pretty much negligible.”

He then runs a bunch of models and examines probability distributions against the observed data, and his conclusion:

To get meaningful information from data concerning mass shootings, it is necessary to be aware of statistical fluctuations that result from an insufficient numbers of incidents. Once that is done, it becomes obvious that the rate of mass shootings in the United States is significantly higher than the other OECD countries.

 

I’d advise anyone interested to read his comprehensive analysis.

I realise your larger argument is that we should be comparing the US against non-OECD countries but that sounds like a bit of a deflection. No-one is denying that the US is likely to suffer from less gun violence than Colombia. The point with comparing the US with other OECD countries is that have comparable levels of economic development and strength of governance and thus it is more meaningful that the US is an outlier amongst this group. That the US is safer than Jamaica is not really in dispute and there is a lot more confounding such comparisons. Adding in other less similar country comparisons also does not alter the demonstrably fact that the US in an outlier when compared using meaningful statistical comparisons with other similar countries.

Whether someone is pro-, anti-, or ambivalent about the situation in the US should be irrelevant to recognising the patterns appropriate statistical analysis reveals.

Who'd a thunk that a right wing gun nut is a columnist at FOS LIES? LMAO

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Poor Libbie. You don't know whether to sh1t or get off the pot.

It must be terrible to have to talk out both sides of your mouth.

It must be much worse that you read things and don't understand what they say but pretend you do.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, West said:

Warped view. 

Same argument the Democrats used to institutionalize slavery

Democrats DID NOT EXIST when slavery was institutionalized in the US.

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. Martin Van Buren of New York played the central role in building the coalition of state organizations that formed a new party as a vehicle to elect Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.

 

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia

Many of the FOUNDERS OWNED SLAVES. Duh

Many of the major Founding Fathers owned numerous slaves, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Others owned only a few slaves, such as Benjamin Franklin. And still others married into large slave-owning families, such as Alexander Hamilton.Dec 8, 2020

 

The Founding Fathers Views of Slavery

 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, West said:

They never stacked the court. They controlled the necessary branches of government to get it done.

Packing the court would be bidens threat to create new SC seats just because he doesn't like how they rule or trying to bribe SC justices to resign.

Instead billionaires bribe justices like Thomas and Alito to stay on the court.

Stacked is NOT "packing." Duh

Stacked is delaying appointment for MANY MONTHS to give it to the next POTUS.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, User said:

The Majority Opinion was about 70 pages long, not including the appendixes. The purpose of citing Sir Matthew Hale took up less than a sentence to only illustrate the common law nature of abortion laws. Instead of dealing with that fact, you make this pathetic play at discrediting a source... when that was never even the point of citing that particular source. 

And as I already pointed out, Roe V Wade was not an established precedent for the 180+ years before...  

So what? A lot of past mistakes with very cruel effects have been corrected in the Constitution AND its interpretations by the SCOTUS. 

Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion, it only stops SAFE abortion.

[Hodad]

17 minutes ago, West said:

If the states want to place limitations on abortion they are able to do so. There are two distinct human beings involved 

I absolutely reject the idea that a developing fetus is a human being, let alone a "distinct" human being. But again, even if we stipulate that that is the case you are--quite literally now--saying that it's okay if the states want to make women 2nd class citizens, condemned to serve fetal citizens against their will.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, User said:

Where do you get any "fetal supremacy" notion from?

This is just a strawman argument. The Dobbs v Jackson ruling created no such thing. It pushed the abortion decision back to the states to be regulated. States like California and other left-wing run states are free (and doing so now) to open up abortion rights to their hearts content. 

Only until the Republicons pass a national abortion ban and/or justices like Thomas manage find another new interpretation.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, User said:

It was not then... when? Roe V Wade did not exist at the writing of the Constitution or for another 180+ years after. 

The Court is not guilty of cherry-picking. Since Roe V Wade, they have had to constantly delve into it since then because it was such an awful ruling. 

Besides, we are straying from the point anyhow... you and I can relitigate Dobbs v Jackson for the rest of our lives. Folks on the Pro-Life side have been pointing out how awful Roe V Wade was for 50 years. So, I wish you the best of luck (not really)

My point here was to simply say that your notion that it is not Constitutional to overturn Roe V Wade is just silly nonsense. 

The basis for RvW was in the 4th Amendment of Constitution from the beginning.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, b. . .

 

Privacy - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov

5 hours ago, User said:

Well, no, you did not say that at all. You made no mention of states. No, the Constitution explicitly protects certain inalienable rights, including the state's right to make laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly protects abortion. 

The Constitution provides the protections which were the basis for RvW

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, b. . .

 

Privacy - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, West said:

And yes it is. They justified slavery by claiming they were half human or whatever

Slavery was common in several of the 13 colonies long before the US was founded. Duh

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, West said:

People rely on others at various points to varying degrees throughout their lifetime. We don't just murder our elderly as an example because they tax the health care system. 

Apparently you don't understand the HUGE DIFFERENCE between reliance on others and TOTAL RELIANCE on a SPECIFIC PERSON.

4 hours ago, West said:

No the point is we have limitations on what you can and cannot do in many aspects of life. You cannot neglect a child because they are too needy, make you get bags under your eyes due to lack of sleep nor can you kill your elderly parent because their care home costs too much money. Should be same limitations on killing babies in the womb as well

No one is "killing babies," and the FACT that you have to resort to that appeal to emotion FALLACY just shows how desperate and wrong you are.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, User said:

This is a bit duplicitous. Roe V Wade was an awful ruling, instead of dealing with that, you want to argue that because it was awful for so long, then we shouldn't change it. 

Again, Roe V Wade is what caused 50 years of political strife and issues. It was a never ending battle to try to push state laws that constantly had to be retested in the Courts with specious legal reasoning and tests created and fabricated by the Courts. The Supreme Court made this a way of our life for 50 years by forcing Roe V Wade on everyone. Now, it is best left to the States. 

Even your take on the Federalist Society is disingenuous at best. Judicial restraint is returning to a world before Roe V Wade because it was the Supreme Court THEN that inserted itself into the case. Righting that wrong is a return to more judicial restraint. 

You are IGNORING the part of the Constitution which was the basis for RvW.

[Nationalist]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

John R. Lott Jr, author

Who'd a thunk that a right wing gun nut is a columnist at FOS LIES? LMAO

It must be much worse that you read things and don't understand what they say but pretend you do.

Attacking the messenger again?

Quelle suprise.

[West]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Apparently you don't understand the HUGE DIFFERENCE between reliance on others and TOTAL RELIANCE on a SPECIFIC PERSON.

No one is "killing babies," and the FACT that you have to resort to that appeal to emotion FALLACY just shows how desperate and wrong you are.

It's not a fallacy at all. 

And your argument is nonsense. 

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I absolutely reject the idea that a developing fetus is a human being, let alone a "distinct" human being. But again, even if we stipulate that that is the case you are--quite literally now--saying that it's okay if the states want to make women 2nd class citizens, condemned to serve fetal citizens against their will.

Well that's because you've been brainwashed by the same folks who told you black people weren't human either

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, West said:

 

Well that's because you've been brainwashed by the same folks who told you black people weren't human either

That's nonsense.

But note, that you can't make the successful argument even if I stipulate that lumps of cells--without formed bodies, brains or any indication of sentience-- are people.