Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

275 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      112
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Excellen Browning said:

The law passed, but it's unconstitutional for now. Whether it stays that way will be up to the US supreme court.

So if I understand this right in half a year the justices in the supreme court will choose whether the law goes through or not?

I took a look at Wikipedia and looked at all the current justices and the majority at first sight seem conservative and even one of the women wasn't against abortion so it doesn't look great. Of course this is Wikipedia so hopefully things in there are outdated or the conservatives on there don't all agree with this law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hekselka said:

So if I understand this right in half a year the justices in the supreme court will choose whether the law goes through or not?

I took a look at Wikipedia and looked at all the current justices and the majority at first sight seem conservative and even one of the women wasn't against abortion so it doesn't look great. Of course this is Wikipedia so hopefully things in there are outdated or the conservatives on there don't all agree with this law.

I don't know about the female justices but yes it's not looking good. To my knowledge Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Alito are all hard anti-abortion, Thomas isn't against it per se but doesn't see it as a constitutional issue, and Roberts is the swing vote while generally being a conservative vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws are being made to go to the Supreme Court yes, the people that pushed for it even mentioned it during deliberation. It is expected that GOP politicians would push for bans to abortion because it's what they do but these laws in particular are so much worse that I'd say the men who put these laws forward should be raped by incarcerated folks like this guy for basically saying a woman that's raped should carry that baby and generally treating rapists as not a big deal (which is a current problem in the country, see rulings on Brock Turner and Shane Piche).

But let's take a step back and let it sink in: Men in power are making abortion laws they know are outrageous just for the sake of pushing it to the Supreme Court and overturn existing precedent. That's just what they see when making the law, but on the flip side of the situation, women will be criminalized for aborting or even having a miscarriage, if this law were in effect in Texas 2 years ago, a friend of mine would have his wife in jail. Corrupt politicians should be subject to the death penalty, they shouldn't have the power to make laws like this that endanger common people and not have any consequences if overturned or rejected by the Supreme court. Fuck these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when i see the anti-abortion legislators on the news being all male, I always assume that the majority of anit-abortion supporters are also men. But when I look on the news at the pro-life protests, the crowds made up of mostly white women. Like what's up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UNLEASH IT said:

You know, when i see the anti-abortion legislators on the news being all male, I always assume that the majority of anit-abortion supporters are also men. But when I look on the news at the pro-life protests, the crowds made up of mostly white women. Like what's up with that?

Could be their wives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Alabama. They're a part of the deep red south so I'm not surprised they passed this bill (Remember these guys put Roy Moore up for election)

It's important to note though that it was a woman who signed this bill into law, not a man, so men aren't only to "blame" I guess...

Edited by Pixelman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pixelman said:

It's important to note though that it was a woman who signed this bill into law, not a man, so men aren't only to "blame" I guess...

Women are capable of acting against their supposed own best interests. Men aren't the only ones who can, neither sex is perfect.

Now one can take a condescending "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" approach to such women as they would with "stupid" men. Though I think it's best to avoid condescension and dehumanizing the enemy and just focus on a cold impassioned beating them back through legal means.

The topic of abortion is one wherein I can see powerful emotive grounds which can bind the pro-life side to their cause. Whilst I do believe it to be a right, it's a touchy subject and personally I'd rather it not used as foremost form of birth control (not saying it is). One should be able to use it if they want to or need to, but I'd suggest circumventing the issue if possible on an individual basis by avoiding conception in the first place through use of other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Women are capable of acting against their supposed own best interests. Men aren't the only ones who can, neither sex is perfect.

Now one can take a condescending "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" approach to such women as they would with "stupid" men. Though I think it's best to avoid condescension and dehumanizing the enemy and just focus on a cold impassioned beating them back through legal means.

The topic of abortion is one wherein I can see powerful emotive grounds which can bind the pro-life side to their cause. Whilst I do believe it to be a right, it's a touchy subject and personally I'd rather it not used as foremost form of birth control (not saying it is). One should be able to use it if they want to or need to, but I'd suggest circumventing the issue if possible on an individual basis by avoiding conception in the first place through use of other means.

Have a read.  It explains their behavior, and it isn't particularly glowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, UNLEASH IT said:

You know, when i see the anti-abortion legislators on the news being all male, I always assume that the majority of anit-abortion supporters are also men. But when I look on the news at the pro-life protests, the crowds made up of mostly white women. Like what's up with that?

People vote against their own interests all the time. Brexit is a good example, the parts of the country that got a leave majority were also the parts where local government relied on EU subsidies for their funding. And in general, a lot of people who rely on social security vote to have it stripped away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eclipse said:

Have a read.  It explains their behavior, and it isn't particularly glowing.

Oh. I was just trying to be a little considerate. But those hypocrites don't deserve so much of that, particularly if these people are the same ones demanding abstinence-only sex education. Thanks for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think its still 5-4 on the Supreme Court in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade, with John Roberts being a vote to uphold the existing body of caselaw.

The problem is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 years old and has cancer.

If Trump gets a second term, abortion will be illegal in 28 states by the end of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think its still 5-4 on the Supreme Court in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade, with John Roberts being a vote to uphold the existing body of caselaw.

The problem is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 years old and has cancer.

If Trump gets a second term, abortion will be illegal in 28 states by the end of it

Even if I'm not personally for abortion, I'm going to support legislation that makes it legal because my morals start and end with me.

I'm in the state that isn't going to cast electoral votes for Trump, full stop, so any convincing I do will have to be online. . .unless the local churches suddenly lose their common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think its still 5-4 on the Supreme Court in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade, with John Roberts being a vote to uphold the existing body of caselaw.

The problem is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 years old and has cancer.

If Trump gets a second term, abortion will be illegal in 28 states by the end of it

The third option being to curtail Roe v. Wade in some way, while still upholding it. 

My bet is on curtailing or ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think its still 5-4 on the Supreme Court in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade, with John Roberts being a vote to uphold the existing body of caselaw.

The problem is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 years old and has cancer.

If Trump gets a second term, abortion will be illegal in 28 states by the end of it

Maybe Democrats can stall like how the republicans did when Scalia died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Judge today upheld House subpoena for Trump's financial records. Pelosi reportedly in closed door meetings now with caucus members and party leaders who are giving her an earful over failing to begin impeachment proceedings.

Moves are still being made.

 

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

What makes you think Roberts won't vote with Trump's intent?


Roberts sided with the liberals on the Court in a 5-4 ruling blocking a Louisiana abortion law from going into effect back in February, and it was a less egregious law than the one they're trying to implement in Alabama. 

He applied the analytical framework of Roe v. Wade to find that the law posed an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and affirmed that said framework is well-settled law.

Roberts is a conservative.

Roberts is also an upstanding institutionalist who cares more about the integrity of The Court then he does about his own political leanings, and who does not wish to go down in history as the Chief Justice who presided over the partisan degeneration of American Jurisprudence.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congressman kicked out of House Committee + exile from his caucus for racist comments compares political treatment to being the victim of a Lynching:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/steve-king-congress-republicans-interview-1353197

I'm sure the irony is lost upon him. 
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eclipse will love these:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445914-kellyanne-conway-dismisses-hatch-act-violation-let-me-know-when-the

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hud-official-lynne-patton-says-doesnt-care-broke-law-1436816

and then when it's time for them to throw the book at them, conservatives will just paint the left as authoritarian assholes.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

@eclipse will love these:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445914-kellyanne-conway-dismisses-hatch-act-violation-let-me-know-when-the

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hud-official-lynne-patton-says-doesnt-care-broke-law-1436816

and then when it's time for them to throw the book at them, conservatives will just paint the left as authoritarian assholes.

Ya here Pelosi reportedly saying she doesn't want Trump impeached; she wants him in jail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Ya here Pelosi reportedly saying she doesn't want Trump impeached; she wants him in jail? 

Which means she wants the Dems to focus on a win in 2020 and not impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that initiating an impeachment inquiry is the right move. Aside from potentially unearthing more of Trump's criminality it would at least demonstrate willingness to fight and hold a corrupt president to the rule of law.

If they don't do it, they're basically letting the Republicans win when they say "it's political suicide, look at what happened with Clinton" and destroy willingness of voters to give a damn to go out and vote. It'd be unused power and the last time they didn't use their power and went along with the GOP's bullshit thinking that an upcoming election would go their way, they got wrecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Except that initiating an impeachment inquiry is the right move. Aside from potentially unearthing more of Trump's criminality it would at least demonstrate willingness to fight and hold a corrupt president to the rule of law.

If they don't do it, they're basically letting the Republicans win when they say "it's political suicide, look at what happened with Clinton" and destroy willingness of voters to give a damn to go out and vote. It'd be unused power and the last time they didn't use their power and went along with the GOP's bullshit thinking that an upcoming election would go their way, they got wrecked.

 

On 6/7/2019 at 5:46 AM, Excellen Browning said:

If Pelosi wants to see Trump in prison then she should probably impeach.


I've been a very harsh critic of Pelosi's position against opening an impeachment inquiry and siding more with the AOC wing of the party pushing to get on with it, but I think I'm starting to see Pelosi's gameplan here. And it isn't a bad one.

...here's the scenario...

The House votes to impeach. It goes to the Senate. Trump is now essentially 'on trial' in the Senate; the impeachment process against a president ostensibly being the legal parallel to a criminal case against a private citizen. 

The subject matter of the trial in the Senate is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

The Senate votes to acquit him on everything; its controlled by partisan Republicans who are going to do a party-line vote and no matter what comes before them will not cast a vote to convict their own president.

Trump's presidency then ends via the normal, non-impeachment process of his term expiring. 

Trump post-presidency is then arrested, indicted, and criminally prosecuted as a private citizen in the Southern District of New York.

The subject matter of the prosecution is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

If you have one shot and only one shot to make the criminal case against Trump; you better hit him with your best shot.

The thinking now is that post-presidency indictment is the best shot, because a Judge is going to build a record and follow the evidence and apply the facts to the law. The Senate isn't. 

So the game plan has to be preserving the case to get it in front of a judge. 

I'm still leaning towards the idea that the integrity of Congress as an institution and the ability of lawmakers to preserve their role as a check on executive power at the very least requires an impeachment inquiry in The House.

The danger of course is that if Trump is operating the way he's operating and there is no impeachment inquiry, then Congress has set the precedent for future administrations that this is the level of criminality a White House can operate at without triggering impeachment. The behavior becomes normalized. ('norms' are just constraints on the aberrant that last until their disuse makes the aberrant the new normal) 

But I understand what Pelosi is playing at.  She's not entirely out on a ledge here. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

Is it possible to impeach Trump civilly, and then prosecute him criminally after he gets out?

I thought people can sue each other both criminally and civilly to get around double jeopardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...