Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[Close2MyBro]

1 minute ago, BareLover666 said:

Yes.
And besides not being a US citizen or resident, I'm also neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I am against idiotic religious and political fanatics that want to or endorse trespassing on our human rights. The fight to keep and get those rights is something that is much broader than democrats vs republicans.

This is not entirely unrelated though as the GOP has put a majority in the Supreme Court that has ruled as it has.

 

This isn't the first time the Republicans have had a majority on the Supreme count, and it won't be the last. The fact that democrats are so self-righteous and believe that only their ideology is correct should be disturbing to everyone. That's how totalitarian governments get started.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Close2MyBro said:

This isn't the first time the Republicans have had a majority on the Supreme count, and it won't be the last. The fact that democrats are so self-righteous and believe that only their ideology is correct should be disturbing to everyone. That's how totalitarian governments get started.

That's a fair point.

But could we now get back on subject, being the reproductive and sexual rights that are apparently to some, are not protected by the US Constitution?

I might even say you are helping this cause along by being critical about Democrats in power. As I may have written earlier I agree that something like this should not be a partisan thing because it is a matter of principal and especially given that the US seems to be split 50/50 between the two big parties.

How do you feel we can change that? How do we keep the rights we have - me as well when visiting your great nation - and further them?

[Guest]

"The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim:

he or she has become a threat."

—

James Baldwin

[Close2MyBro]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

- The SCOTUS ruling has given your US states the unlimited power to forbid abortions in all cases within their borders.

 

You could have also written this as "The US Supreme Court has returned the right to determine if abortion should be legal to the individual states," which is actually a more accurate description of what happened and not charged with the word "forbid". I hope you are aware that abortion is legal with few restrictions in about 30 states. An additional 10 states allow abortion but are much more restrictive. About 10 states outright ban abortion.

I know you're not from the U.S., but do you believe that all states should obey federal laws?

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, Close2MyBro said:

You could have also written this as "The US Supreme Court has returned the right to determine if abortion should be legal to the individual states," which is actually a more accurate description of what happened and not charged with the word "forbid".

Actually, that is perhaps more accurate, but not *entirely* accurate. The Supreme Court's opinion went further than that.

Pre-Dobbs, no state *nor the federal government* could prohibit abortion entirely. Now, under Dobbs, not only can STATES ban abortion, but if we end up with another period like 2017-2018, when the GOP has the presidency, the House and the Senate, they can pass a *federal* ban on abortion, nationwide, and SCOTUS has said there's no constitutional impediment to doing so. You can also bet the farm that if those 3 entities are controlled by the GOP, the Senate GOP majority will kill the filibuster for abortion legislation in a heartbeat. Their right-wing base will demand it.

And if such a ban were to pass, it would require the Democrats to again control all three - not an easy task given the bias of the Senate towards Republicans, because of the number of sparsely populated red states that get the same number of senators as giant blue states - in order to repeal that ban.

1 hour ago, Close2MyBro said:

I hope you are aware that abortion is legal with few restrictions in about 30 states. An additional 10 states allow abortion but are much more restrictive. About 10 states outright ban abortion.

You are correct on the last number (though several states are in fact likely to join that number). But in fact, only 15 states actually protect the right to an abortion, meaning that in 35, there's no protection against a sweeping change if the legislature ends up in the hands of the GOP (and they're very good at gerrymandering, which SCOTUS has also blessed).

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Do you ever get tired of feeling like a victim? Do you think that's accidental, or possibly intentional? For years now the democratic party has been sounding alarms for all of its followers to keep them in a constant despair and an agitated state.

Dude - do you even think about what you post? Do you not realize that's what the right wing has been doing for far, far longer than the Democrats have - in fact, since the 1960's, when the Democrats coalesced into the party of liberals while conservative Democrats began fleeing from their party to the welcoming arms of the GOP. The Republican party has been portraying Democrats as the ruination of America because of feminism, abortion, civil rights, gay rights, and more for my entire life, and CERTAINLY for yours. How did you reach whatever age you are and think this is strictly a Democratic phenomenon?

5 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Do you ever wonder why many of the problems you face every day never get solved, even during the numerous instances in which the democrats had a majority in the house and senate and the presidency, but yet these simple issues, which could be solved quickly by an act of congress, never get solved?? My believe is it is intentional, because they need to keep these issues alive to keep you angry and to get you to donate money.

See, there's that "belief" thing again, which is nice and all, but it's not "factual". Here's the facts: Acts of Congress have to pass both chambers there, and to pass the Senate it requires 60 votes (even for the most innocuous bills) because if any member objects, they have to take what's called a cloture vote - to limit filibustering and bring bills to a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. So unless your party has 60 senators, or you can get the balance needed to defect from the other side, you can't advance most legislation.

From 1969, the point at which the Democrats became the "liberal" party (as their conservative members began switching parties), the Democrats have had a 60-vote margin in the Senate from 1975 to 1979 (at which time abortion rights, civil rights, and voting rights were considered "solid" and gay rights were scarcely imagined), and then again for roughly two months of actual Senate meeting time during the 2009-2010 period, during which time the ACA was the only thing they could get through before they lost that supermajority. 

THAT is why the Democrats haven't passed things "by Act of Congress". For most things, they don't have the needed votes. By contrast, most of what the GOP has wanted to do for the past 40 years is cut taxes, which is one of the few things you can do with a bare majority. And they've done it every time they take power - under Reagan, under Bush I, under Bush II, under Trump. 

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Back in the 60's and 70's, the black community has a mentality of "we shall overcome". Advance 50 years and now they, along with many other minorities, have become "victims" of everyone and everything and have been trained to become dependent on the government to solve their problems, which we all know will never happen.

Funny how decades of locking up hundreds of thousands of black men to get them off the streets, summarily executing them during traffic stops and no-knock raids, and the like can make people feel like victims. In the 1960's and early 70's, black people had a sense that white people were starting to come around and that their civil rights were being protected finally. Then along came the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts that threw out many of the gains they'd made in the late 50's and 60's. You know, it's kind of rational to change your outlook when circumstances change. 

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

White people are encouraged to "hate themselves because of their privilege".

I'll take "Things that never happened" for $2,000 and hope it's the Daily Double.

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Critical race theory further induces people to believe the odds are already stacked against them, thus making them further dependent on the government for assistance.

Tell me you don't understand Critical Race Theory without saying you don't understand it and make it obvious you only get your warped view of it from right-wing media.

Critical Race Theory (which the vast, vast majority of Americans will ever encounter, because it's a specialized academic discipline at the graduate school level) doesn't "induce" people to believe anything. It presents facts - oh, those pesky facts again! - that aren't necessarily obvious regarding the effects of race on various institutions. What people draw from those facts is a different matter. But since you don't even know what CRT is, I can't expect you to understand what we can learn from it.

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I think it's sad so many democrats choose to wake up every morning, run to their liberal news sources such as CNN and MSNBC (which, by the way, are falling faster in the ratings than a penny dropped from the Eiffel tower, while Fox news soars - that alone should tell you something) and find something new to be angry about that day.

Oh, facts time again. All three cable news networks - Fox, CNN, MSNBC - are declining in viewership. All three. Fox is not "soaring". And in fact, only a tiny percentage of Americans watch ANY of the three on any given day - about 4 million people across all three networks. But given how you're trumpeting FoxNews, it's pretty clear where your brain rot is coming from.

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

You could have also written this as "The US Supreme Court has returned the right to determine if abortion should be legal to the individual states,"

No. The right to determine whether a woman should have legal sovereignty over her own body cannot be returned to the states because the right has never justly belonged to the states. A human being’s right to determine what happens to his or her own body is the absolutely fundamental individual human right, and must not be subject to the whims of the political majority. If the patchwork of state legislative overreach shows us anything at all, it is that states individually can be expected to support the national Constitution on when it is convenient to them - fundamental rights must be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution for precisely this reason. A line has to be drawn in the sand that says: This far, and no further; behind this line, the rights are inalienable; you may not touch them.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996?

DOMA was a trap laid by the GOP majorities elected in 1994. They were trying to force Clinton to either veto the bill - giving the GOP a huge issue to run on in 1996 - or to cause a rift with his base by signing it, thus depressing Democratic turnout that fall. There was no good choice politically speaking, and let's face it, it was a political choice. Part of me is unhappy he didn't do the morally right thing and veto it, but it's also quite possible that if he had vetoed it, we'd have had a Republican president again from 1997-2000. By saving his presidency from an unforced error, we avoided that. (And no, I'm not saying he was noble in doing so - he wanted to get re-elected - but that goal coincided with what we wanted in a president.)

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

This after  he heavily lobbied the gay community for his re-election and promised them gay marriage and then turned his back on the gay community.

That is an absolute falsehood. Clinton *never* made a promise to support gay marriage prior to DOMA. In fact, he had specifically said that while he supported gay rights in general, and broadly, he was *not* in support of same-sex marriage. The direct quote is from Reader's Digest, which interviewed him as a candidate: "I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians, but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.”

You could be mistaken (which is possible, because based on your A4A profile, you're a bit young to have been politically active when he first ran for president, and you may be misremembering things). But you're categorically wrong on that point.

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

The law stood until 2015, when the Supreme Court struck it down altogether.

Again, (at least partially) incorrect. Section 3 of DOMA (the part that said federal law could not recognize otherwise legal same sex marriages) was struck down in 2013. See Windsor v. United States. From that point forward the federal government was required to recognize same-sex marriages.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, which you're probably thinking about), did end the remainder (Section 2) of DOMA. In fact, though, as the parties agreed while the case was being argued, simply recognizing the right to get married in all 50 states essentially negates Section 2, and the Court so held - but the Court struck it down anyway, devoting only two sentences to that effect. ("The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

In other words, more than a footnote, but just barely.

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

This means that democrat Barack Obama and his democract super majority did nothing to overturn the Defense of Marriage act when they could have.

Technically true. As noted in my previous post, however, most of the two months' time they had to pass a DOMA repeal (or any other major legislation) was taken up getting the ACA through the Senate. Outside of those two months, passing a DOMA repeal was impossible because they did not have 60 votes. 

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Then things like this happen and you can see the true colors come to the surface.

Only if you consider your ignorance of the Congressional legislative process "true colors". 

[NEDenver]

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

How well do you know your "gay history"? Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? This after  he heavily lobbied the gay community for his re-election and promised them gay marriage and then turned his back on the gay community. Joining him in voting for the ban on gay marriage was also then-senator Joe Biden. The law stood until 2015, when the Supreme Court struck it down altogether. This means that democrat Barack Obama and his democract super majority did nothing to overturn the Defense of Marriage act when they could have.

So may people seem to think that the democratic party is the solution to all problems. Then things like this happen and you can see the true colors come to the surface.

As a minority myself, I refuse to allow the democrats to exploit me for votes or sympathy. I don't need the government to "prop me up", I'm capable of doing just fine by myself, thank you.

I know my gay history to know that 1) He signed the Defense of Marriage Act to delay a Constitutional Amendment.  The Defense of Marriage Act wasn't lobbied for by Clinton, it was something the conservatives in both parties insisted on.  By that I mean just about every Republican in 1996 and some Democrats.  Now it's still nearly every Republican in the Senate, save the Mormons hoping to expand on same sex marriage to include polygamy.  Not that I'm against that, but Lee and Romney are innately amoral people.  They're not heroes, despite them being there for non-traditional man-woman marriages.

2)  Bill Clinton was poised to allow open service in the military when the conservatives in Congress--some Democrats, but nearly every Republican--insisted that he not.  As a compromise, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue became a thing.  Just for some background, I was in the service at the time.  I had some friends come out right after Clinton made his announcement who then got kicked out because they violated DADT.  It's shitty, but the shit isn't from Clinton.  The shit is from conservatives.  That's not opinion, that's just straight fact.  The bad things that happen are not from Democrats, despite your bizarre bait and switch attitude.  The Republicans are not your friends.  They want you back hiding in the shadows.  Even the cowardly moderates like Biden aren't trying to ruin your life, they're just afraid of the next bigoted talking points coming out that you'll fall for.

This strange Prager U worthy level of dis-education is disturbing, but it's basically falling for weak logical arguments, faulty premises, occasionally reaching back 150 years to find a grievance and pretending it's relevant today, and if it's repeated often enough, and your weak-minded family and friends all fall for it, it's easy to fall for it, too.  It's all marketing and propaganda techniques, and they're used by conservatives because they know they work.  After about 2 decades of everyone knowing that gays weren't predators hunting children, we're back to those arguments because conservative talking points and lies. 

 

[BootmanLA]

5 minutes ago, NEDenver said:

Now it's still nearly every Republican in the Senate, save the Mormons hoping to expand on same sex marriage to include polygamy.  Not that I'm against that, but Lee and Romney are innately amoral people.  

Mike Crapo of Idaho is also a Mormon. And there are six Mormons in the House. Don't know if those 7, though, support piggybacking polygamy onto same-sex marriage or not.

Complete agreement with your post, however. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

You could have also written this as "The US Supreme Court has returned the right to determine if abortion should be legal to the individual states," which is actually a more accurate description of what happened and not charged with the word "forbid". I hope you are aware that abortion is legal with few restrictions in about 30 states. An additional 10 states allow abortion but are much more restrictive. About 10 states outright ban abortion.

I know you're not from the U.S., but do you believe that all states should obey federal laws?

Within the topic of this thread:
Human Rights should be universal and have 'direct effect' for every human being be it man, women, transgender or child and wherever they are.
With this I mean that no government should be allowed to limit our freedoms or rights; Not your local government, regional, state / countries or federal / union government, and not the United Nations.

Your rights can and should be limited when they trespass on the rights of someone else, and protected by a and all (democratically elected) governments.
When the right to being treated equal - or other rights that guarantee your personal freedoms - conflict with the freedom of religion or political convictions those two rights can and should be limited:
a. To protect us against totalitarian rule;
b. Because faith is a choice just as political beliefs are. 

Abortion is a complicated issue not because it's about 'choice' versus 'life' (as it has been oversimplified and framed) and not only because the rights of two humans may conflict;
Mostly it's a difficult question because we grow into a human being and people differ in their views on the moment after the fertilisation of an egg-cell / ovum we should be considered human and alive with the full protection of our right to live (or die in a humane fashion, for that matter). 
 

The right to have sex is mostly a no-brainer to me, consenting adults should be able to do what they fucking want, but it is a sensible idea to forbid reproduction (by having sex) between siblings and first-cousins, to prevent birth defects by inbreeding.
Incest as such is little tougher as I have serious doubts about how healthy it is mentally or psychologically. If it concerns consenting adults and only when no children can be conceived from such a union, and although I question it and have concerns about the mental health of these people, I'd choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and allow it.

As I mentioned some Human rights - as the right to life - are fundamental and others - like the right to religion or political thought - are of a slightly lesser category. That means that although Human Rights are universal and inviolable, one may be sentenced to lose some political rights in extreme cases that involve crimes like rape and murder, when it shows a inherent disregard for the value of someone else. But such limiting of freedoms should be only imposed very, very cautiously. 

Within this framework I cannot justify the death penalty in any case. And even life sentences - let alone more than one life sentence - are punishments I have great concerns about. Mass murder or serial killing may warrant a life sentence though.
- For one thing it sends the message that the right to life and liberty are conditional and not fundamental;
- It sends the message that there is such a thing as a 'lesser human'.

 

Outside of the scope of this thread, It seems illogical and impractical when local and regional governments can disregard laws made by the higher State / National or Federal / Union governments. 
As your States at one point voluntarily joined the federation, it seems they can also be burdened with the right to choose to leave such a treaty they once made.

[Close2MyBro]

10 hours ago, NEDenver said:

I know my gay history to know that 1) He signed the Defense of Marriage Act to delay a Constitutional Amendment.  The Defense of Marriage Act wasn't lobbied for by Clinton, it was something the conservatives in both parties insisted on.  By that I mean just about every Republican in 1996 and some Democrats.  Now it's still nearly every Republican in the Senate, save the Mormons hoping to expand on same sex marriage to include polygamy.  Not that I'm against that, but Lee and Romney are innately amoral people.  They're not heroes, despite them being there for non-traditional man-woman marriages.

2)  Bill Clinton was poised to allow open service in the military when the conservatives in Congress--some Democrats, but nearly every Republican--insisted that he not.  As a compromise, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue became a thing.  Just for some background, I was in the service at the time.  I had some friends come out right after Clinton made his announcement who then got kicked out because they violated DADT.  It's shitty, but the shit isn't from Clinton.  The shit is from conservatives.  That's not opinion, that's just straight fact.  The bad things that happen are not from Democrats, despite your bizarre bait and switch attitude.  The Republicans are not your friends.  They want you back hiding in the shadows.  Even the cowardly moderates like Biden aren't trying to ruin your life, they're just afraid of the next bigoted talking points coming out that you'll fall for.

This strange Prager U worthy level of dis-education is disturbing, but it's basically falling for weak logical arguments, faulty premises, occasionally reaching back 150 years to find a grievance and pretending it's relevant today, and if it's repeated often enough, and your weak-minded family and friends all fall for it, it's easy to fall for it, too.  It's all marketing and propaganda techniques, and they're used by conservatives because they know they work.  After about 2 decades of everyone knowing that gays weren't predators hunting children, we're back to those arguments because conservative talking points and lies. 

 

The fact is that democract Bill Clinton signed the bill. Nobody forced his hand. I'm sorry if this is another "inconvenient truth" about the democratic party, but as they say "the truth hurts". To me, it shows the true colors of the party - say one thing, do another.

[Close2MyBro]

11 hours ago, NEDenver said:

...  and your weak-minded family and friends all fall for it ...

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the continued attempts to insult me. Nice try, but I'm not insulted.

[ErosWired]

52 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

To me, it shows the true colors of the party - say one thing, do another.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mitch McConnell.

And I’m a Kentuckian.

And no, I did not vote for the son of a bitch.

[NEDenver]

2 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the continued attempts to insult me. Nice try, but I'm not insulted.

So quit falling for cheap marketing tricks.  The Republican Party is one big glittering generality with a bunch of bandwagons and your Clinton whataboutism.