# Supreme Court justice dies



## NYC Composer (Feb 13, 2016)

Holy crap -Antonin Scalia just dropped dead in Texas.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

Very very good news for the country.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

Scalia brought some personality to Court.
Ginsberg and Nino were the 2 most respected voices for years.
One of my favorite decisions of all time came before them when SCOTUS acquitted Mohammed Ali.
My childhood Hero until Bruce Lee.

One of my other favorite courtroom memories was Curly....


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

Soundhound, good news for America is removing the investors in candidates and making bribes a crime, like they are in the rest of the world.
China has anti corruption laws with harsh punishment.
In the USA we encourage corruption since some lawyers/politicians created laws making thier stay more worthwhile for them.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

Jimmy removing the investors from candidates and making bribery a crime is a fantastic think for the country. Hoping that Donald Trump will do that is like sending Paulie Walnuts in to reorganize the books at a meatpacking plant. It's absolute insanity.

Scalia was a disaster for this country. His record of primitive fundamentalism gave the radical right wing the legal excuses they've needed for screwing the working class. I wouldn't count that as adding personality. That's also insane.

The radical right will fight this tooth and nail, because they are dangerous ideologues who have no respect for the law. They will lose.

Scalia's death is the best thing to happen to this country in quite a long time. I am very very glad that he is dead.

- Doug


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 14, 2016)

Of course the Senate will veto just about any candidate that Obama comes up with, with less than one year of tenure and rightly so. In fact they will veto just about _anything_ he comes up with.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

The contention that Obama shouldn't get to appoint a chief justice in his last year is radical right wing patent nonsense, of course. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of even very recent history knows this. The lovely part is that it's in direct opposition to Scalia's (primitive and fetishistic) supposed adherence to the concept of 'originalism'. A poetic tribute to the man indeed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2016)

Politics has always been war, but it hasn't always been quite the cage match it is now. Any spirit of reason or acceptance that compromise is the most necessary way to move the country forward has left the building. Obama is partly responsible for this, as he's not much of a schmoozer. He's much more of an ivory tower guy.

Baron, yes, the Republicans will block a Supreme Court nomination just as, early on, the head of the Senate majority stated it was the primary goal
of his tenure in office to block anything the President did. Anything and everything. There's a model for rational government- total stalemate accompanied by 8 years of dual sided rhetoric.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

Obama should find an Asian, then when white, black, hispanic, indian and gay conservatives say no, they will be called racists, making asian victims side with wealthy white liberals.

That could be a new catagory of oppressed to represent.

But Asians are a successful minority.
They have no problems staying out of jail, getting good jobs, education.......??
I wonder how they can possibly succeed in racist America where minorities are purposely targetted and kept from succeeding.

Ive noticed Africans from Nigeria and Jamaica all seem to be pretty successful. I buy Shea Butter bars here in Nashville from a Jamaican victim. The Nigerian guy bought a Cab company after working there for 20 years. Somethings wrong, Hillary and the rich whites would never lie...?

According to Liberals (everytime an election rolls around), the reason blacks under Liberal leadership since 2008 are killing each other in historical numbers, have high incarceration rates, double the unemployment rates of whites is because the entire private sector stands against them.

I better check the Huffington Post, they know the truth.

Speaking of HuffPo.
Arianna Huffington was bashing Trump on Twitter and he destroyed her in a retweet...

He said..."Arianna...you are as unattractive inside, as you are outside.
Your husband was smart to leave you for another man."



That's elegance....


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2016)

That's junior high.

As to the racial makeup of the Court- yes, the liberals are ridiculous in trying to establish a representative diversity. What we should really do is go back to the original model of nine old white men.

While we're at it, we should roll back a bunch of nonsensical social legislation, like women's right to vote and own property, equal opportunity housing, child labor laws, workplace safety regs, Social Security, Medicare, WIPS, affirmative action, anti slavery. Jeez. Let's go back to the true intentions of the Constitution- that all rights were assigned to wealthy landowning White men, and they could be any sort of Christian they wanted to be.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

Jimmy are you in any way aware how wildly ignorant this is??!?!



chimuelo said:


> But Asians are a successful minority.
> They have no problems staying out of jail, getting good jobs, education.......??
> I wonder how they can possibly succeed in racist America where minorities are purposely targetted and kept from succeeding.
> 
> ...


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

I agree Larry.
Since wealthy whites own everything including the Ghettos they rent to tax payers, it's only fair they come out of the shadows and quit using different colored faces to pretend they're all diversified and shit....

Then in another decade the silent millions of multiracial guys like me will oversee racial deconstruction until all whites blacks Hispanics and Asians are shamed into breeding until we all look alike.

Then we can concentrate on shaming the elderly for being non productive.

When it's all over people will collect 1 year of social security then a government doctor will kill them with a new serum that's painless.

We'll take back America......
We've been taking it back every 4 years as long as I can remember.

My plan will succeed.

So it shall be written
So it shall be done


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

I will also push for the best parts of Islam Judiasm and Christianity to merge.
We can have a dozen hos.
Divorce results in the woman becoming a Government slave like we have now.
At least this way the man can have new trim without losing another car child or house.
Shit if I was gay I'd be rich.
So many x wives and houses.....

Hey why do they name Hurricanes after women...?

Because they come in fast and wet.
And when they leave they take your house and car.....

Ankyu


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2016)

So it's only rock n roll, eh Jimmy?


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 14, 2016)

Actually the 70s on CNN with Lorne Green then The Good Wife.
Then back to the AID64 Cache testing on the Crytal Well L4 on my i7 5775C.

A real PITA trying to keep RAM and cache synced and separate from CPU. They call this the RingBus.

The BIOS on a Supermicro is really deep and frankly driving me nuts.

But success is really measured by enthusiasm retained after multiple failures.

Hope you and your better half had a great Valentine's Day.....

Cheerz


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2016)

No, really. Liberals are all sheep, stupid, misinformed, don't see the wheels within wheels. But you do, and it's all a big joke. You're impassioned about absurdities, not much else.

Only rock n roll.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 14, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Very very good news for the country.



WTF?!?!?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

Unless a Republican president is elected next, the court will no longer have a conservative majority. Sounds like good news to me!



RiffWraith said:


> WTF?!?!?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 14, 2016)

I don't see how Obama is responsible for anything of the sort. The radical right feels that they are entitled to absolute power and have spent eight years obstructing the workings of government. You can't schmooze fundamentalists.




NYC Composer said:


> Politics has always been war, but it hasn't always been quite the cage match it is now. Any spirit of reason or acceptance that compromise is the most necessary way to move the country forward has left the building. Obama is partly responsible for this, as he's not much of a schmoozer. He's much more of an ivory tower guy.
> 
> Baron, yes, the Republicans will block a Supreme Court nomination just as, early on, the head of the Senate majority stated it was the primary goal
> of his tenure in office to block anything the President did. Anything and everything. There's a model for rational government- total stalemate accompanied by 8 years of dual sided rhetoric.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 14, 2016)

I don't think Obama is particularly collegial. Sometimes it helps.

I do blame obstrucionists for most of it.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Unless a Republican president is elected next, the court will no longer have a conservative majority. Sounds like good news to me!



So you feel it necessary to say it's good news for everyone, when someone else dies. Nice.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> So you feel it necessary to say it's good news for everyone, when someone else dies. Nice.


He's nice like that. A sweetheart of a guy.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> The contention that Obama shouldn't get to appoint a chief justice in his last year is radical right wing patent nonsense, of course.



No one's saying he can't nominate an appointee. The senate leaders are saying they won't confirm. If the shoe were on the other foot - if a lib supreme died in a repub pre's last year of office - you'd support the dems in their effort to deny the president's nominee.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

The point is the radical right's continual and habitual lying and rewriting of history to try and get their way. Making up the idea out of whole cloth that in the last year of a presidency Supreme Court appointments aren't made. These guys just make bullshit like this up. All the time. And because the people who vote for them are uninformed, and terribly misinformed by the right wing media that feeds them, they believe it. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> No one's saying he can't nominate an appointee. The senate leaders are saying they won't confirm. If the shoe were on the other foot - if a lib supreme died in a repub pre's last year of office - you'd support the dems in their effort to deny the president's nominee.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Ah Michael. You are a sensitive soul.


Michael K. Bain said:


> He's nice like that. A sweetheart of a guy.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

Nino was a great man regardless of your indoctrination.
Ginsberg is also a great patriot as she was a total opposite of Nino.
Having such valued legal opinions benefits all Americans.
So keeping a balance is far more important.

Liberals know their lies and lawlessness caused their removal in every election since 2009.
At this point all Liberals can do is find someone to be rejected that will hopefully cause a backlash
by the minorities they rule during the general election.

I predict a hispanic woman, or black women as covering multiple catagories of victimhood (oppressed woman/oppressed race combination) would be the smart move.

This would give General Electric Wall Street and wealthy white billionaires a huge advantage with the candidate they selected for the DNC.

I will miss the old Sicilian goat.
He always questioned everyone and made the process of the Supreme Court a learning experience.

And Larry half of my wages went to big insurance and wall street for pension investments.
How is that free?
I earned 36 credit hours even had a 4 year run where I only played music an hour a day in my bedroom studio.
72 hour weeks paid off our mortgage.
I think I earned my money.
Unlike Federal Liberal Unions where bonuses are given to people who denied our veterans care.

At my job I screw up I am fired.
Liberals get caught stealing money they get 90,000 dollar bonuses and promotions.
Thats what I call free money....


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> The point is the radical right's continual and habitual lying and rewriting of history to try and get their way. Making up the idea out of whole cloth that in the last year of a presidency Supreme Court appointments aren't made. These guys just make bullshit like this up. All the time. And because the people who vote for them are uninformed, and terribly misinformed by the right wing media that feeds them, they believe it.



You do realize that Chuck Schumer tried the very same thing in 2007, right?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Ah Michael. You are a sensitive soul.


Too sensitive for my own good, actually, which is why it bothers me when someone rejoices over a supreme court justice's death.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Yes. Absolutely. Scalia was a menace. The country is going to be much better off now that he's gone. His 'originalism' and 'textualism' served as the (flimsy and often preposterous) legal backbone for the regressive, fundamentalist politics of the last 30 years. It will take generations to get past the damage he's done. Anyone unhappy about big money in politics has Scalia in large part to thank. 



RiffWraith said:


> So you feel it necessary to say it's good news for everyone, when someone else dies. Nice.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

I am too, and it often gets me into trouble, so I understand Michael. However, I would rejoice over the death of a leader of the KKK, or George Wallace, any number of people. On a personal level of course it's a tragedy for those close to him. For everyone else, it's a lifting of a dark cloud. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> Too sensitive for my own good, actually, which is why it bothers me when someone rejoices over a supreme court justice's death.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Yes, I'm keeping track of the radical right wing blogs as well Michael. But cherry picking will not uncover the same habitual lies and deceit on the left as it will on the right. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> You do realize that Chuck Schumer tried the very same thing in 2007, right?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> I am too, and it often gets me into trouble, so I understand Michael. However, I would rejoice over the death of a leader of the KKK, or George Wallace, any number of people. On a personal level of course it's a tragedy for those close to him. For everyone else, it's a lifting of a dark cloud.


Oh now that's ridiculous to compare Scalia to a leader the KKK. I don't know enough about George Wallace to comment on that.
And it's certainly not the lifting of a dark cloud for me. I appreciate having a supreme court justice who would consistently take stands for the lives of the most innocent Americans - babies.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Yes, I'm keeping track of the radical right wing blogs as well Michael. But cherry picking will not uncover the same habitual lies and deceit on the left as it will on the right.


Oh no, Hillary's no liar. Not at all.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

My black buddies mom chased me after answering her door once.
We were just kids and I didnt know who Wallace was. A guy knocked on thd door asked me to speak to an adult so I yelled for the Mrs.

I didnt know he was campaigning for Wallace even though he had a big badge and pamphlets.
She chased me all the way downstairs and after hiding behind my magnus c350 fan generated organ. She started laughing about it.
Once she explained things, me and my black buddy tracked him down on our bikes and started throwing fruit and tomatoes at him.

Never met the guy but I believed my black buddies mom.

And dont be mad at Soundhound. Hes a victim of Liberal indoctrination that starts in the union day care centers and continues on through cable media.
Its a very powerful indoctrination.
I wad once under thier hypnotic effects of equal everything too.
Then I realized they were all wealthy and white. Lived in white neighborhoods. Kids went to segregated schools...

Then I saw the light at the age of 15.....


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

The radical right wing's hate for Hillary Clinton is old style misogyny at it's finest. The absurd, constant and baseless attacks have always yielded nothing. Benghazi, the email nonsense. What it reveals is the radical right wing's obsession with their own self righteousness. They adhere to a primitive, backward looking belief system. 

My disappointment with her is because she's too closely tied to Wall Street. But compared to anyone even close to the republican nomination for president, she's a godsend.



Michael K. Bain said:


> Oh no, Hillary's no liar. Not at all.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Everyone who disagrees with Jimmy The Chim is an indoctrinated sheep, btw. Jimmy is the only person impervious to the Men In Black like powers of the Liberal Media. The black helicopters will never catch Jimmy. He is way too fast. Serpentine Jimmy, serpentine! (10 extra credit points for naming that reference!)


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

I credit free thinkers who invented Sanskrit writings and Eric Von Donniken....


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

Also regarding the Helicopters.
Huey and Loche cop choppers are easy to evade.
But the Apache...no way.
If you hear one it's too late.
Don't run.
You'll just die tired....


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Did you lift that, or is that yours? If the later, you need to get on that screenplay or novel or whatever the hell it is. Seriously Jimmy, if that's you, you can really write. 



chimuelo said:


> Don't run.
> You'll just die tired....


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Michael, we've been here before, and I disagree with you about a woman's right to choose. As does the Supreme Court. Do you really want to get into that again? 

I do feel that Scalia's decisions were profoundly destructive, short sighted and driven by ideology. I think he will go down as the most most regressive force in American legal thinking, in my lifetime certainly. The prospect of having a progressive (or least not regressive) majority on the Supreme Court is the most hopeful thing to happen to this country in a very long time. In retrospect even more important than Obama's election, especially since the radical right wing, driven by mindless ideology and fueled by racism, obstructed his every move, grinding the gears of government to a near standstill. A newly progressive, or at least moderate Supreme Court will hopefully have more room to operate. 

I am very glad indeed.



Michael K. Bain said:


> Oh now that's ridiculous to compare Scalia to a leader the KKK. I don't know enough about George Wallace to comment on that.
> And it's certainly not the lifting of a dark cloud for me. I appreciate having a supreme court justice who would consistently take stands for the lives of the most innocent Americans - babies.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

If Liberals stopped paying for abortions and paying poor uneducated women to breed we wouldnt need Planned Parenthood centers surrounding Liberal ghettos.
If Conservatives cherish life so much step in and save this child who wont get the education or care it deserves. Preserving life is the goal here, so do the right thing.

Problem solved.


Next......
Racism and Libreral segregation strategies.

I am well versed and offer a solution to avoid the fake racism of Conservatives and soft bigotry of wealthy white Liberals.

As a brown skinned racist I can help the indoctrinated with a solution that is in place and was working before Liberals went back to segregation practices.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Yes. Absolutely.



Wow. Really? Wow. Hey - maybe we can be friends?

NOT

So, if YOU died, and we all said,

_Very very good news for the VI Forum, and the music community as a whole. Unless someone else who is exactly like SH joins, this forum will no longer have any nonsensical political BS. Sounds like good news to us!
_
That would be ok? Of course you wouldn't be able to comment on that, as you would already be deceased. Point is, tho.... is that attitude a good thing to have?

What if your wife died (having no idea if you are married), and we all said,

_Very very good news for the VI Forum! SH will be dealing with his loss, so we won't have to hear from him for a while! YAY!!!!!!
_
You'd be fine with that, right?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

If I had done the damage that Scalia has done, that would be absolutely understandable! But, at least to my knowledge, (and certainly to the relief of the radical right so handsomely represented on the internet) I have had infinitely less effect on society than Antonin Scalia.

So saying that about me, or my wife, or you, or your wife, would simply be petty retribution and vindictiveness. It's a false equivalence. I'm actually not proud of being happy that Scalia is dead, I've never really felt this way before. But it's an absolutely honest reaction. I'm not glad that his family and friends are suffering, I'm sure it's intolerable. But I am very, very glad for the rest of the world. He made countless lives much worse, has been the cause of much suffering, and he will no longer have the opportunity to make further contributions.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 15, 2016)

Instead of emoticons we need avatars where there are smiling cool folks when discussing composition and theory.
Then we get that Donald Trump Twitter jacked off face when discussing the 2 law firms in DC that represent thier clients who select the candidates for the commoners.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Michael, we've been here before, and I disagree with you about a woman's right to choose. As does the Supreme Court. Do you really want to get into that again?


Nah, you'd once again just ignore what science says about it, so what's the point?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Way to rehash a failed argument while running away, Michael! emblematic of the intellectual bravery so powerfully owned by right wing ideologues.

Yes the radical right is so devoted to the scientific method. Sweet jesus...




Michael K. Bain said:


> Nah, you'd once again just ignore what science says about it, so what's the point?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Way to rehash a failed argument while running away, Michael! emblematic of the intellectual bravery so powerfully owned by right wing ideologues.
> 
> Yes the radical right is so devoted to the scientific method. Sweet jesus...


Running away? Who's running away? You said to me "Do you really want to get into that again?" and I simply answered with the truth of what happened last time we argued about abortion. I showed you embryologist source after source stating that life begins at conception, but it didn't matter to you.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

The point is, Michael, you bring up cherry picked information that supports a belief of yours which is actually driven by religion. And you do it while saying you don't want to argue the point. It's disingenuous obfuscation. Which is how you argue.

I would argue for the rule of law in this case. Which, thanks to the fact that Scalia will no longer be on the court, has a good chance of remaining the rule of law, instead of damning countless women to the dangers and often death caused by back alley abortions.



Michael K. Bain said:


> Running away? Who's running away? You said to me "Do you really want to get into that again?" and I simply answered with the truth of what happened last time we argued about abortion. I showed you embryologist source after source stating that life begins at conception, but it didn't matter to you.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 15, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> So saying that about me, or my wife, or you, or your wife, would simply be petty retribution and vindictiveness.



No, actually it would be the exact same thing - just coming from a different source. But we can leave that be.

Ok, so what damage has Scalia done that the court as a whole has not?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

That's not a particularly fair appraisal I don't think Riff. Kind of Bill Clinton-like parsing, giving 'a different source' a wide definition, so wide as to kind of obliterate its meaning.

As for what Scalia did that the court did not is an interesting take on that issue as well. Scalia was the leading conservative voice of the court for more than a generation. Leading the way to regressive, devastating decisions. Here's a quick list to get the ball rolling, if we want to roll it. I'm out to dinner but just copying a link here for the moment. Rampant big money in politics, striking down parts of the 1965 voting rights act, Hobby Lobby off the top of my head..... Scalia was steadfast against progressive thinking and police. It will take a generation to undo the damage if not longer:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/14/jf-10-of-the-worst-decisions-of-antonio-scalias-career-with-quotes/





RiffWraith said:


> No, actually it would be the exact same thing - just coming from a different source. But we can leave that be.
> Ok, so what damage has Scalia done that the court as a whole has not?


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 15, 2016)

I really do not want to get into this discussion - especially on an internet forum where some people will just not listen to anything but their own voice, but, I will say this...



Soundhound said:


> Scalia was steadfast against progressive thinking and police.



This is a skewered way of looking at things. He was def. NOT against the police. What he was in favor of (in part) is the protection of the 4th A., and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. You may not think these to be good things, but I do. And that certainly does not make neither him - nor me - anti-police.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...as_often_a_friend_of_criminal_defendants.html

In terms of his being against progressive thinking - I wouldn't totally disagree with you there, but you can't simply make that as an all-inclusive statement; it depends largely on what _progressive thinking _means. If you mean reform - depends what type. Many 'progressive thinkers' - and I am not insinuating that you are one of them - want to upend and undo the constitution. Scalia was _extremely_ defensive of the constitution (in small part, as outlined above). Now, you may not agree with being that defensive of a piece of paper written 240 (give or take) years ago, and that's fine. But if you do happen to be that defensive about it, that does not make you a "disaster for this country".

Also, Scalia said the following (from the link you posted):

“The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

Exactly what we want a SC Justice to say - leave it to the people.

Cheers.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 15, 2016)

Okay. States rights are always invoked by the right when it suits their taste, never when it doesn't. It's an entirely disingenuous stand that they take. The hypocrisy is consistent with the right in this regard.

Scalia wagged the dog on the issue of abortion, as he did throughout his career. The ideas of originalism, and textualism, are very new, Reagan Era, self serving concepts, and their track record is indeed disastrous. Citizens United, which finds its best support in the hands of originalism, is in large part responsible for the greatly increased power of ideologues like the Koch Brothers. It is a disaster. Obama was exactly right when he decried the decision in his state of the union, with Alito disrespectfully shaking his head 'no' as The President spoke. If a progressive judge had done that as George Bush addressed the nation Fox News and the Pop News as well (CNN, network news etc) would have screamed to high heaven.

The country has veered dangerously to the right in my adult lifetime. To the point where an incompetent charismatic lunatic like Donald Trump can lead in the polls at this late date in a presidential election.

How did this country get to the point where big business writes all the rules and all the money flows to the top 1%? Here's what happened. Before Richard Nixon, the South had been historically Democratic since the Civil War. Richard Nixon took the resentment many working class southerners felt from the civil rights movement and used it to bring them into the Republican fold. The party that had always represented the interests of big business thereby convinced the very people who's interests it has always worked against, was on their side. This wave elected Ronald Reagan, and began the era of deregulation, continually repeating economic scandals and crises, starting with the savings and loan debacle thought the mortgage bubble which resulted in the recent devastating recession, and culminating in the Citizens United decision which allows money unfettered access to the election process. The right wing has continually updated its politics of fear, resentment and division. Distrust of government, the idea of states rights (which is used only when it benefits the interests of the right, never when it furthers the interests of working people).

The mouthpiece for this resentment began and continues on AM radio (Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, et al) but found its greatest reach through TV of course, with Fox News. Owned and run by a far right wing ideologue, Fox has preached the gospel of allowing big business to run roughshod over the country, couched as ‘freedom for all’, to now more than a generation. To the point that someone like Bernie Sanders, who is by historical standards a moderate democrat, to be seen as a proponent of radical left wing ideas.

Our largely privatized health care system is set up so that if you get cancer, you will not be able to pay for treatment unless you are rich. Obama was able to get through a very moderate reform which is only a step in the right direction, it needs to be a single payer health care system. It was amazing that Obama was able to make it happen in the right wing political climate. But when Hillary Clinton tried to push a single payer system in the 90s, the insurance lobby cut her off at the knees.

The country has suffered terribly at the hands of the right wing. Working people can’t make enough to feed their families. Fox News tells them that the problem is big government, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Antonin Scalia provided the pseudo intellectual framework for the far right. I am, again, very glad that he can do no further harm.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2016)

Belief systems are not necessarily intellectual by nature, hence the entire problem with the idea of impartiality from jurists (even very bright ones, and Scalia was certainly bright). Also, this whole "originalism" concept is complete nonsense..as if societal changes and the technological advances wouldn't make a great deal of interpretation necessary! The concept is absurd.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Feb 16, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> How did this country get to the point where big business writes all the rules and all the money flows to the top 1%? Here's what happened...



Good and accurate description of the early agenda that still haunts the entire globe. Must add Margret Thatcher to the mix of course.

The orthodox paradigm that economics is the authentic language of politics was installed, and this orthodoxy was reinforced in schools, universities, economics and law.

All debates over social economical, and social political issues would collapse into reinforced consensus.



Soundhound said:


> The country has veered dangerously to the right in my adult lifetime. To the point where an incompetent charismatic lunatic like Donald Trump can lead in the polls at this late date in a presidential election.



I remember well when I asked myself this very question when an incompetent uncharismatic lunatic and less than average movie actor named Reagan was elected.

Right wing parties thriving throughout Europe, since well over a decade now. We are living in a post 2008 world, and arrived at a point where the very existence of the European Union is threatened not only by right wing parties but by pushing EU deeper into executive federalism.

http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=9780745662428

P.S. Soundhound, it might be perceived as distasteful to dance on someones coffin before the flowers withered. ....so what...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2016)

So Georg- you're betting I won't respond here if I disagree? I started this thread! 

Reagan was not charismatic?? Even most of his detractors (me among them) recognized that he was. He was practically the definition of charismatic- it was about the only thing he had going.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 16, 2016)

Reagan was a winner.
The guy gets shot in the head. 
Comes back and helps millions of Krauts knock down the Iron Curtain.
So I understand the "What My Country Can Do For Me" crowd seeing millions of Europeans getting all the attention.
I thought Reagan and Bush Sr. were Americas finest hour.
Paid off a 30 year mortgage in 7 years.
Yepp, terrible times for suffering Americans.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2016)

Reagan was a handsome stick figure with an actor's poise. He was barely sentient. If you were already on a winning path, Reagan made money for you, since he cut social programs along with taxes. If you needed a hand or you were gay, Reagan most likely starved you or killed you with neglect.

Read his diaries someday. The guy was more concerned with lunch than foreign policy.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 16, 2016)

Me and first husband did fine.

I left the comfort of my Union day job and ATCO Recording contract for LA.
They didn't honor my transfer so I only played clubs at night for shit money.
Wife had to wear ass less leather chaps as a waittail cocktress to make rent.
Moved to Scottsdale to shovel concrete and play music there. Shitty pay but we managed.
Didn't get to Vegas until 85.
Struggling and failing helped my punk ass.

I guess we were just lucky during those years where so many suffered.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2016)

How many husbands have you had?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 16, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> The point is, Michael, you bring up cherry picked information that supports a belief of yours which is actually driven by religion. And you do it while saying you don't want to argue the point. It's disingenuous obfuscation. Which is how you argue.



You wre the one who said "you don't want to get into this again, do yo?u" about abortion and I answered your question. I said "No" and I told you why. Do you want to repeat the same discussion we had last time? If so, we'll just copy and paste everything we said before. But it sounds like a useless endeavor to me.



Soundhound said:


> damning countless women to the dangers and often death caused by back alley abortions.



Women aren't being damned to back-alley abortions. They do not have to seek abortions. Preborn babies, however, have no choice in the matter. 3700 of them are murdered everyday by abortion.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 16, 2016)

Micheal you brought it up and then said you didn't want to discuss it. Are you really in 7th grade? Is your next line of argument 'I know you are but what am I?'

But you do want to discuss it, clearly. You can't help yourself, as a true believer, a fundamentalist. But I must point out to you that religion does not have equal standing in this country to government. Church and state are separated, thank god. That way dangerous, atavistic superstitions are not the law of the land. They are in territory controlled by Isis however. Perhaps you would be more at home there?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 16, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Micheal you brought it up and then said you didn't want to discuss it. Are you really in 7th grade? Is your next line of argument 'I know you are but what am I?'



You're right, I did bring it up, as an example of one reason Scalia was good for the country. I forgot about that.



Soundhound said:


> But I must point out to you that religion does not have equal standing in this country to government. Church and state are separated, thank god.



When did I bring up religion to you? Every time I have talked about abortion, I have related it science - in particular, embryology.

You are the one who always wants to talk about religion. No, I'm sorry, not talk about it: insult it.



Soundhound said:


> That way dangerous, atavistic superstitions are not the law of the land.



Yeah, dangerous superstitions like " human life begins at conception", a superstition supported by embryology. That kind of superstition?



Soundhound said:


> They are in territory controlled by Isis however.
> Perhaps you would be more at home there?



Hey, I'm not the one who's okay with killing innocent babies.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 16, 2016)

Michael, for the trillionth time, citing a couple of cherry picked papers does not science make. There is no consensus on the issue. None.

Your insistence that you rely on science to support your point is patent nonsense. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would admit to that. Your religious beliefs force you to believe that life begins at conception. That is why you believe that.

Your way of thinking is much closer to Isis than post enlightenment thought. The first settlers here of course shared your way of thinking. They were kicked out of England for their insane radical fundamentalism, and once here they happied themselves by burning witches at the stake.

Again, thank god for separation of church and state! Hurray for the constitution! A living, breathing document that grownups are empowered to interpret and build on.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 16, 2016)

The definitive answer (from a rabbi):

Life begins when the kids leave and the dog dies.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 16, 2016)

Michael I know you only read radical right wing stuff, but read this and then we can continue our discussion if you want to. But read it first.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/04/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0/


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 16, 2016)

The rebbe clearly knows his stuff.



NYC Composer said:


> The definitive answer (from a rabbi):
> 
> Life begins when the kids leave and the dog dies.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 17, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Michael, for the trillionth time, citing a couple of cherry picked papers does not science make. There is no consensus on the issue. None.



First thing I want to do is apologize for my first input in this thread, which was a swipe against you. I disagreed with your joy over Scalia's death, but I shouldn't said what I said.

I didn't cherry pick a "couple" of sources. I provided source after source after source in which embryologists state that life begins at conception. If I find that post, I will link to it. There is vast consensus among embryologists that life begins at conception. It's practically, if not literally, unanimous consensus. 



Soundhound said:


> Your insistence that you rely on science to support your point is patent nonsense. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would admit to that.



Why would I admit to that untruth? You should be the one admitting that embryology does indeed claim that life begins at conception, because it's fact.



Soundhound said:


> Your religious beliefs force you to believe that life begins at conception. That is why you believe that.



My religious beliefs don't force any idea on me. I hold no belief or thought against my own free will. 




Soundhound said:


> Your way of thinking is much closer to Isis than post enlightenment thought. The first settlers here of course shared your way of thinking. They were kicked out of England for their insane radical fundamentalism, and once here they happied themselves by burning witches at the stake.
> 
> Again, thank god for separation of church and state!



Soundhound, you can't possibly actually believe that my belief that life begins at conception is anything like ISIS at all. I don't believe in killing anyone, in fact, I believe in saving innocent baby lives. I don't go around "burning witches at the the stake" or going on any kind of witchhunt at all. I don't condemn you for your beliefs, even though they are vastly different than mine. 

90% percent of what I talk about on this forum is abortion. Of course I believe that abortion should be illegal; if you thought abortion were murder, you would hopefully want it to be illegal as well. 

If you truly believe that my belief system is anything even remotely related to ISIS, you are a very unreasonable person.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 17, 2016)

Only one husband, but I often ponder how things would have been financially, if I didn't have to pay 2 women not to live with me.

I coulda been a contender....


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 17, 2016)

I am calling on all people who have ever read my posts in this forum: Whether you agree with my stances and beliefs or not, do you believe that my thinking is like ISIS, as Soundhound claims?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

Michael, you are sidestepping the issue, and not discussing it rationally. Once more, I point you to the article I provided. It describes very clearly the radical right wing's disingenuous use of the concept that life begins at conception to further their personal religious ends. 

I too misspoke regarding the concept of life beginning at conception. That catchphrase is used as misrepresentation by the far right to exactly the ends you are employing here. If you read the article, and we won't be able to have a full discussion until you do, you'll see that it explains the difference between a biological definition of the beginning of 'life' with the concept of personhood. Will you please read that, and then we can continue the conversation on its merits, rather than slogans and catchphrases? 

The ball is in your court Michael. I am in the middle of working for the next hour or so. I'll check in when finished.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

I'll repost the link here so no scrolling up is required!

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/04/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0/


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 17, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Michael, you are sidestepping the issue, and not discussing it rationally.



Not discussing it rationally? You are the one who accused me of thinking like ISIS, with no basis whatsoever. And when I call you out on your lack of reason it, you try to tun away from it. You make incendiary remarks like that, you should be prepared

And why should i read that article form that site? That site is every bit as biased to the left as the "radical right wing stuff" you accused me of reading is to the right! Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

I actually did read enough of that article to know that it's basically making making the claim that "life" is different from "individuality" and "personhood".

In a previous discussion, I presented several quotes from embryologists that say conception does begin the individual person, including one from a Harvard Medical School professor:

*“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception….*
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/abortion-discussion.49761/#post-3911328


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 17, 2016)

I should note that I generally consider myself pro-life. I'm just not radical about it, and think the way to stop abortions is through love, education, and better economic opportunities, not litigation. I believe we should all strive to achieve this, though if you do not agree, I will respect your opinion.

I also think it's very blunt for anyone to say they are happy Scalia is dead. I'm not happy when anyone dies, though when Bin Laden was killed for example, I did anything but shed a tear. But I'm not going to celebrate a person's death, no matter how much I may disagree with them politically.

Having said all that I am glad he's no longer on the SC. I did find him to be way too conservative and fundamentalist. More than any other justice in a century, or longer. And as much as anyone else in the nation, he opened the floodgates to the plutocratic corruption and cronyism that runs (and has ruined) the government today, through repeated rulings in favor of what is essentially legalized bribery.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

Michael, your refusal to read the article fully shows me that you don't want to listen to any argument that doesn't agree with you. How can we have a discussion if you won't listen to the other side's point? When you read that article fully we can continue.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

I'm not happy that someone died, ever. Okay, Hitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, there are exceptions. But I am very much against the death penalty. If Scalia could have been removed from the supreme court while still alive, of course that would be better. But I do believe that we are all better off with him not on the court.

I also am very much pro choice. I believe it's up to the woman to decide what to do. If women were in charge, abortion would be a closely held right in the united states. Michael's refusal to discuss the issue on it's merits is a very good example of the binary, blinders on way of thinking that the far right encourages, and uses religion to fuel fear and hate. Resulting in the murders of abortion doctors.

I'm more than willing to have the full, honest discussion with Michael. But I'm not holding my breath.

<I should note that I generally consider myself pro-life. I'm just not radical about it, and think the way to stop abortions is through love, education, and better economic opportunities, not litigation. I believe we should all strive to achieve this, though if you do not agree, I will respect your opinion.

I also think it's very blunt for anyone to say they are happy Scalia is dead. I'm not happy when anyone dies, though when Bin Laden was killed for example, I did anything but shed a tear. But I'm not going to celebrate a person's death, no matter how much I may disagree with them politically.

Having said all that I am glad he's no longer on the SC. I did find him to be way too conservative and fundamentalist. More than any other justice in a century, or longer. And as much as anyone else in the nation, he opened the floodgates to the plutocratic corruption and cronyism that runs (and has ruined) the government today, through repeated rulings in favor of what is essentially legalized bribery.>


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 17, 2016)

Yuze guys should have a beer together since you have regressed to angry avatars.
And Snow mentioned legal bribes and is correct.
But those briefs were a direct result of tax payers money for government unions where membership dues and organizing fees were funneled to politicians selling favors.
If these people who seek office are not happy with their salary they shouldn't run for office under the guise of public service.

I was a hypocrite for years and thought buying Liberals was fine.
Years later I find the entire process corrupt and has brought our system to where outsiders are being called on to change this whore house run by lawyers.

Citizens United being reversed in the first step.
Then the teachers who are tired of union leaders going to jail for stealing money meant for poor districts will make the dues scandal change.

When you keep sending lawyers to watch the trillions coming into DC what do you expect...?

It's like asking Colenel Sanders to watch your chickens for the weekend.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 17, 2016)

A case that should be fast tracked to SCOTUS is the FBI vrs.Apple.

That decision will be played out on the Good Wife first. But what a fascinating complex case..


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

Jimmy you're a poet and a gentleman. 

Michael I'm visiting the ancient parents but will be on a plane tomorrow and will make a brief post about why I think the 'life begins at' argument is spurious. Its in the article, but if you won't read that, I'll explain why I feel the way I do. if that doesn't help, next time we're in the same town I propose a beer per Saint Jimmy's prescription.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2016)

There is no comity to be had on this issue. People who are strongly anti abortion feel that abortion is murder and trumps any choice by a woman. People who strongly pro choice believe that forcing a woman to carry to term is enslavement and subjugation of females. There is no way to rationally debate this argument for anyone if they are entrenched in their positions. In the long run, the courts will decide and the losing side will go on fighting to change the ruling again and again.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 17, 2016)

As the only male here who became pregnant my opinion carries little weight.
But I was glad my better half didn't tell me what to do with the 30 pound belly that grew on my lower torso after my triple hernia.
Through strict dieting and rigorous exercise the cannonball was removed and once again I was capable of brief breeding episodes.
Glad the decision was mine instead of a lawyer 1000s of miles away...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2016)

Actually Jimmy, I have a fairly severe case of diastasis recti (which is actually a real thing) so you're not the only male to deal with your pregnancy.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 17, 2016)

To those who are pro life:
1) Please fund free access to birth control. 
2) Please fund good adoption centers. Help promote adoption. Adopt children - regardless of age, race, etc.
3) Please fund free healthcare for children.
4) Please fund support for poor, single mothers.

All of the above can reduce the number of abortions without changes to the law. The key is for women not to need to or want to choose abortion.

When abortion was illegal, many women chose to get black market abortions and many died. Note that laws against abortion did not eliminate abortion. The only things that will (nearly) eliminate abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to make the choice to carry the child to term an attractive one.

My mom knew three girls who got pregnant in high school, back when abortion was illegal. One married the guy. They were too young and soon divorced. Another left school that year, went to live in shame with relatives, gave the baby up for adoption, and returned to school the next year. A third went to Mexico, got an abortion, and died. Women need better choices than these.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 17, 2016)

Well said JF

Larry that sounds awful.

Speaking of dinner, I had rectal bagworms once and it was terrible.
I usually look forward to pinching a loaf and getting goose bumps on my arms, but I was miserable for a whole week fearing the moment I had to make Al Sharpton a little brother.......sorry......I meant to say take a shit.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 17, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> Michael, your refusal to read the article fully shows me that you don't want to listen to any argument that doesn't agree with you. How can we have a discussion if you won't listen to the other side's point? When you read that article fully we can continue.



You don't read the resources I put up, so why should I read yours? 

At least the quotes I put up are from scientists. The article you linked to is from a leftist site.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 17, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> To those who are pro life:
> 2) Please fund good adoption centers. Help promote adoption. Adopt children - regardless of age, race, etc.
> 3) Please fund free healthcare for children.
> 4) Please fund support for poor, single mothers.
> All of the above can reduce the number of abortions without changes to the law. The key is for women not to need to or want to choose abortion.



Actually Jon, these services and assistance are already done all over the place by Christian charities.




JonFairhurst said:


> When abortion was illegal, many women chose to get black market abortions and many died. Note that laws against abortion did not eliminate abortion.



There were less abortions than there are post Roe v. Wade.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 17, 2016)

Michael-I cannot believe I am ever going to change your mind, nor do I believe you will ever change mine. In my view, the matter gets decided by the courts and the public. If you accept my premise as correct, what's the point of this debate?


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 17, 2016)

You're repeating yourself, and you're not saying anything. I read the sources you put up and the article I put up was in response to those. Until you read it, we can't have a discussion on the actual issues at hand. I have work to do tonight but will explain it while en route tomorrow evening, if you continue to refuse to read anything that doesn't echo what you already believe, which I imagine will be the case. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> You don't read the resources I put up, so why should I read yours?
> 
> At least the quotes I put up are from scientists. The article you linked to is from a leftist site.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 18, 2016)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Actually Jon, these services and assistance are already done all over the place by Christian charities.



So are you saying that no more effort is needed here? It's all roses and smiles for pregnant women who didn't intend to have children?

Clearly, more work is needed for all women to want to bring their pregnancies to term.

And note that some Christian groups oppose contraceptive services. Until recently, the Catholic church opposed contraception entirely.



> There were less abortions than there are post Roe v. Wade.



But not zero. 

There are fewer women who die from abortions since Roe v. Wade. Those lives matter too.

We need to take a holistic, solution based view here. The sin and punishment approach can cause as many or more problems than it solves.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2016)

NYC Composer said:


> Michael-I cannot believe I am ever going to change your mind, nor do I believe you will ever change mine. In my view, the matter gets decided by the courts and the public. If you accept my premise as correct, what's the point of this debate?


I'm not debating with you.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> So are you saying that no more effort is needed here? It's all roses and smiles for pregnant women who didn't intend to have children?
> 
> Clearly, more work is needed for all women to want to bring their pregnancies to term.



Hearken back to your post. You wrote "please feel free to" as if they didn't already. I was simply telling you they do.



JonFairhurst said:


> The sin and punishment approach can cause as many or more problems than it solves.



Look, I believe abortion is murder. I'm taking the same approach people would take in reference to murder of people who have left the womb. If that type of murder were suddenly made legal, would you be okay with that?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2016)

Soundhound said:


> I read the sources you put up and the article I put up was in response to those. Until you read it, we can't have a discussion on the actual issues at hand. I have work to do tonight but will explain it while en route tomorrow evening, if you continue to refuse to read anything that doesn't echo what you already believe, which I imagine will be the case.


Okay, I have read the article now. She made pretty much the argument I knew she would after I had read only part of it. That there is a distinction between the "starting place" of a human being and "personhood" given rights, etc. She went into more detail, stating that personhood should not be assigned to the fertilized egg.

But Soundhound, most of the quotes I provided directly and more at the link state the opposite and that conception is the beginning of an individual human being, like these:

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a *new, genetically distinct human organism* is thereby formed.."

"The* development of a human* begins with fertilization, a process by which the _spermatozoon_ from the male and the _oocyte_ from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the _zygote_."

"The time of fertilization represents the *starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual*."

The starting point of the life history of an individual. The development of a human. A new genetically distinct human organism.

Those words - from embryologists-support the idea that a fetus is deserving of protection rights.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 19, 2016)

That’s great Michael, thank you for reading it! Let me respond by starting with a couple of caveats. 

I agree with Larry that we are very unlikely (okay there’s no way) to change either’s minds on this. These are very closely held beliefs. You have thought about it much more than I have, but I do believe strongly in my position and will try my best to explain it clearly. 

Second, I just got back from a visit with my parents, and have hit the ground with a lot of work waiting for me. Always a great/hyperventilating inducing situation. The next 7 or 10 days are going to be crazy. So if any responses are late in coming, that’s why!

In arguing about this with you I fell into the same semantic trap that the argument in general has experienced the last few years. I’ve been reading up on the issue during my trip and better understand. I hope to not make a hash out of it:

As you say, science tells us that a completely unique individual begins at fertilization. And by that definition, it constitutes a human life. But it seems to me that that entity is a human life in the same way that an acorn is a tree. It is a human life only in the sense that it is a complete blueprint for a human life. It cannot exist, it will cease to exist, outside the womb.

And that seems a very important distinction because many circumstances arise in which the interests of that entity, and the interests of the mother, must and do conflict. In the case of rape, incest, the health of the mother, or even the choice of whether a child is wanted at that time, should a person be allowed to not bring that life into the world? 

I say yes. In one article the writer eloquently states that there is no doubt that when pregnant, a woman is carrying a human life, and that raises an insoluble conflict. The mother’s interests, and the interests of the life she is carrying cannot in some circumstances both be fulfilled. 

The issue this raises is, does one life have more rights than another? And here I don’t see how we can say anything other than yes. Does a woman who has been raped have the right to not bring that child into the world? Yes. Her rights outweigh the rights of the zygote, or not yet viable fetus, in my opinion. Does a young woman who is not ready to have children have the right to not bring a life into the world until she is ready? I say absolutely. 

Where I think things get confused, and why I think the life begins at conception argument is purposefully misleading, is that if you believe that life is sacred and no life must ever be extinguished, no matter how small or insignificant, then you can start to argue that a zygote’s rights outweigh the rights of the mother, I suppose. 

But the concept sacredness can only be real to someone who subscribes to a religious belief. I don’t have any religious beliefs, and our constitution very clearly requires the separation of church and state.

Is in vitro fertilization murder? Embryos are destroyed in that process. Is IVF murder? Is killing an ant murder? Where do we draw the line? 

This is incomplete and probably not terribly well outlined, but I’m interested to see your counter argument.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 21, 2016)

Tap tap tap... Is this mic on? Michael??


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 23, 2016)

Aaaaallllllrighty then.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 23, 2016)

Michael has a tendency to do this-engage in a thread expressing a passionate viewpoint, then leaving. I'm not sure if he's watching his blood pressure or what. It's curious.


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 24, 2016)

On a pragmatic level, even if the Supreme Court somehow, some way, overturned Roe vs. Wade, it would not make all abortions murder in the US, unless the lawsuit and following ruling were written that way, which is not going to happen, no matter how much someone wishes it, or sues for it. Just to be clear, both Clarance Thomas, and former chief justice Rehnquist stated in the past they were not strictly against abortion, their rulings were based in that they didn't interpret the Constitution to say _anything_ about this issue, thus it was an issue to be decided by the states. John McCain has taken this same stance. I also see the logic in it. I get the impression other justices on the court, certainly Kennedy if he changed his mind, but also Roberts, and maybe Ailito would take this same view. 

Thus, the only ruling with any chance of passing would be to negate the federal law, and kick the issue back to the states. The odds of this are extremely slim, and would require a shift in the court beyond what we have seen for three decades, further to the right than Kennedy, and maybe Roberts. Then you'd have roughly 25 states where abortion is legal, and abortion clinics set up in border towns along those state's lines. Getting abortion made completely illegal then in every state house would be virtually impossible. States like Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. would never pass such a law. This would likely create a drain of individuals from certain states, and drive a huge wedge in the country beyond what might be there already. 

In order to thus make all abortion illegal at a federal level, you would need the Supreme Court (and likely several appeals courts) stacked with ideological, active justices who are very conservative. More conservative than Thomas, Kennedy, and probably Roberts and Ailito. More conservative than Rehnquist was. And what are the odds of this happening? 

So I'll stand by my same argument. People who want to see abortion eliminated have two choices. One is to spend (eg. waste) a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money, trying to accomplish the above. Or they channel more of that same energy into the little list that Jon noted.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 24, 2016)

The problem is that the radical right, through laws which and regulations which are not only unnecesary but in fact designed to restrict a woman's legal right to abortion, is managing to make abortion much more difficult to obtain. They are rolling the clock backwards in this country. They do the same thing with voter suppression. The right wing in this country is deeply, profoundly un-American and anti freedom.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 24, 2016)

I could have used the time to write music. But _nooooooo_....  <sigh> 



NYC Composer said:


> Michael has a tendency to do this-engage in a thread expressing a passionate viewpoint, then leaving. I'm not sure if he's watching his blood pressure or what. It's curious.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 25, 2016)

I have a perfect replacement for SCOTUS now that the time has come.

Surprised Obama wants Sandoval.
He's a fantastic Governor, I'd hate to see him leave Nevada.

Personally I think SCOTUS is for the very best and brightest in case law, and upholding the laws in place.
The Constitution if flexible and can be changed as it was written hundreds of years ago.
But the process is what MUST be followed or you run the risk of overturned decisions and chaos from having recusals from former activists, etc.

I bring you Jonathan Turley. A Liberal Law Professor, but he KNOWS law, and fought the Federal Courts seeking justice for Area 51 workers.
One of the most intriguing cases in our nations history.

A real Liberal.
Sandoval is a Republican and proven fiscal/social moderate.
Which is why I am surprised at Obama's decision...?

Probably just wants to see the establishment shoot itself in the foot again as investors are divided.

Paul Ryans' cousin would be the first Black Woman Justice.

I'll go with Goliath killer Jonathan Turley...


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 26, 2016)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Actually Jon, these services and assistance are already done all over the place by Christian charities.



Funny how #1 is conspicuously absent from that list. I have never understood why the people most opposed to abortion often are the ones fighting to make it hardest for people to get access to birth control. As a practical matter, what better way to reduce abortion than to get more people using birth control and reduce unwanted pregnancies?


----------

