SCOTUS Decisions

[RiverDog]

Boy, things have been dead in here for awhile. Perhaps a new topic will liven things up.

SCOTUS has been busy recently, and I can't say that I'm disappointed. To the contrary, most of their decisions I've agreed with.

First of all, they ended Affirmative Action. I didn't like it when they came up with it back in the 70's. They weren't ending discrimination, they were displacing it from one group to another. But if there was a justification for it nearly 50 years ago, it has long since disappeared. The race demographics in this country has changed to such a degree that it's almost impossible to tell who a minority is and who isn't. It irritates the hell out of me when people call Patrick Mahomes a black quarterback, completely ignoring the fact that his mom is white. What percentage of blood is necessary for one to be considered a minority? 50%? White/Caucasians currently make up just 59% of the population, and that percentage is declining at a rate of about 1% per year. It's time that we stop segregating ourselves by race, at least in law if not in practice.

The other decision that SCOUS rendered that I liked was them torpedoing Biden's college debt relief plan on the basis that he overstepped his authority. The debt relief program was horribly unfair. Why are we giving doctors and lawyers a $10K-$20K gift? If a truck driver who took out a federal SBA loan of some $150,000 to buy a semi-truck and trailer to start their own trucking company, what makes him/her any different than the college grad that accumulated the same amount in student loans in pursuit of their career? The federal government gives out over $40 billion a year in SBA loans. Why is the focus only on educational loans? Since most college grads vote Democratic, one has to wonder if it's not Biden stroking his constituency.

I got a kick out of Biden's whining about SCOTUS, calling them "not normal". He didn't mind it when they've handed him a number of victories, including issues on immigration, election laws/redistricting, and birth control. But now that they've come down opposite of him on a couple of issues, they're suddenly 'not normal.' Sorry, Joe, but that's what you guys get for trotting out Hillary in 2016.

[Aseahawkfan]

Affirmative action is way too hard to manage in the modern day. They should go more by income level if they want to help the less fortunate.

I gave up on race a long time ago, at least it is used in America. I'm mixed "race" as it is called with my mother being of Mexican ancestry and my father European mutt, but I never saw my families as different. They never really acted differently. Both were blue collar people. About the biggest difference is one group could speak Spanish and ate different types of foods commonly, but both enjoyed each other's food and company and never treated each other like they were a different "race."

And as far definition by skin color, dark-skinned Indians don't need affirmative action, neither do Nigerians, Ethiopians, or many other Africans who will just outwork anyone else to get things they want like becoming a doctor or lawyer. Asians are doing better than people of European descent. If anything, people of European descent aka white people will need affirmative action against Asians and other immigrants at some point because they're getting their asses kicked in school by these folks. That's a major reason why you see the whining about immigrants now. Not only are low end jobs getting taken by immigrants, but so are higher end jobs because white folk are getting out-competed in jobs, education, and the like. Their lazy ass, digitally addicted children who want to spend more time smoking dope than going to school aren't going to beat immigrants from highly conservative nations who see more value in working hard in America than Americans themselves. I worked with a bunch of Afghan immigrants who from the moment they got here they started pursuing school, working a job, doing Uber and whatever they could to make money, buying houses, starting businesses, and busting their asses because the only thing holding them back in their own nations were the lack of opportunities. Opportunity is everywhere in America for those willing to work to make the most of them. Only Americans, usually liberal Democrat voting Americans, try to paint this place as a nation where only the wealthy prosper, but immigrants willing to put the work in make them look like complete idiots as they earn money, buy homes, and build wealth. I think there is far less support for affirmative action across the nation than before due to the huge mix of immigrants. You can't even argue white people dominate higher education any more given how many immigrant students are dominating. Fact is poor kids need more help than rich kids, that includes poor American kids of European descent as well African descent.

As far as the student loan program, I was fine with it either way. It's mostly irrelevant. Just wish the courts would kill some of these business welfare programs as well, but seems the Democrats rarely bother to do much to stop business welfare even why they're selling themselves as the party of the working man. Republicans don't stand against business welfare because the local news networks don't sell it as welfare and Republican voters never spend much time learning about business welfare and how much money is given to the wealthy as tax breaks, loans that are forgiven and forgotten, so they never get up in arms about it because the media arm of the Republicans love business welfare as it helps the bigwigs in both parties.

I don't enjoy the hypocrisy and so called unfairness called out by voters like Riverdog who rarely speak out about the unfairness and unnecessary level of business welfare in this nation that goes to people far wealthier than a few doctors getting 10,000 in student loan forgiveness. Be nice if the Republican voter was a little more mad about the millions and billions being given to people who are far, far, far wealthier and need it less like the COVID loan forgiveness which was handed out in a much larger amount to business owners make more than the doctors and lawyers that might get the piddly 10k loan forgiveness. But that isn't being splashed on Fox News or every conservatives favorite media sites, so the Republican voters don't even think about it.

Same as the anti-stock trading bill in Congress will get swept under the carpet because neither party wants that garbage. Democrats like to make money too. They just like to pretend they're nicer wanting to give back a little to the poor bastards, even though it's more like giving it back to ourselves as we almost always end up paying for it in the end whether higher prices, more taxes, or the like.

Yeah. I hear Biden whining. Some of the court decisions went his way, some didn't. The Democrats have to pull out the conservative card even though impeaching the court and making the move is going to set up future Democratic appointed judges for the same and they know it. Don't start the war with the Republicans or they'll come back with it, just like you see them trying to impeach Joe Biden now. Tit for tat.

There you go, Riverdog. Toss in some discussion. It's kind of a boring time in sports and politics right now. Sort of that lull period.

Mariners suck this year. Seahawks are in the slow part of the NFL downtime. One more month to training camp. No election craziness probably until about March of next year? Maybe Feb? Next year should be real interesting.

[RiverDog]

Affirmative action is way too hard to manage in the modern day. They should go more by income level if they want to help the less fortunate.

I gave up on race a long time ago, at least it is used in America. I'm mixed "race" as it is called with my mother being of Mexican ancestry and my father European mutt, but I never saw my families as different. They never really acted differently. Both were blue collar people. About the biggest difference is one group could speak Spanish and ate different types of foods commonly, but both enjoyed each other's food and company and never treated each other like they were a different "race."

And as far definition by skin color, dark-skinned Indians don't need affirmative action, neither do Nigerians, Ethiopians, or many other Africans who will just outwork anyone else to get things they want like becoming a doctor or lawyer. Asians are doing better than people of European descent. If anything, people of European descent aka white people will need affirmative action against Asians and other immigrants at some point because they're getting their asses kicked in school by these folks. That's a major reason why you see the whining about immigrants now. Not only are low end jobs getting taken by immigrants, but so are higher end jobs because white folk are getting out-competed in jobs, education, and the like. Their lazy ass, digitally addicted children who want to spend more time smoking dope than going to school aren't going to beat immigrants from highly conservative nations who see more value in working hard in America than Americans themselves. I worked with a bunch of Afghan immigrants who from the moment they got here they started pursuing school, working a job, doing Uber and whatever they could to make money, buying houses, starting businesses, and busting their asses because the only thing holding them back in their own nations were the lack of opportunities. Opportunity is everywhere in America for those willing to work to make the most of them. Only Americans, usually liberal Democrat voting Americans, try to paint this place as a nation where only the wealthy prosper, but immigrants willing to put the work in make them look like complete idiots as they earn money, buy homes, and build wealth. I think there is far less support for affirmative action across the nation than before due to the huge mix of immigrants. You can't even argue white people dominate higher education any more given how many immigrant students are dominating. Fact is poor kids need more help than rich kids, that includes poor American kids of European descent as well African descent.

As far as the student loan program, I was fine with it either way. It's mostly irrelevant. Just wish the courts would kill some of these business welfare programs as well, but seems the Democrats rarely bother to do much to stop business welfare even why they're selling themselves as the party of the working man. Republicans don't stand against business welfare because the local news networks don't sell it as welfare and Republican voters never spend much time learning about business welfare and how much money is given to the wealthy as tax breaks, loans that are forgiven and forgotten, so they never get up in arms about it because the media arm of the Republicans love business welfare as it helps the bigwigs in both parties.

I don't enjoy the hypocrisy and so called unfairness called out by voters like Riverdog who rarely speak out about the unfairness and unnecessary level of business welfare in this nation that goes to people far wealthier than a few doctors getting 10,000 in student loan forgiveness. Be nice if the Republican voter was a little more mad about the millions and billions being given to people who are far, far, far wealthier and need it less like the COVID loan forgiveness which was handed out in a much larger amount to business owners make more than the doctors and lawyers that might get the piddly 10k loan forgiveness. But that isn't being splashed on Fox News or every conservatives favorite media sites, so the Republican voters don't even think about it.

Same as the anti-stock trading bill in Congress will get swept under the carpet because neither party wants that garbage. Democrats like to make money too. They just like to pretend they're nicer wanting to give back a little to the poor bastards, even though it's more like giving it back to ourselves as we almost always end up paying for it in the end whether higher prices, more taxes, or the like.

Yeah. I hear Biden whining. Some of the court decisions went his way, some didn't. The Democrats have to pull out the conservative card even though impeaching the court and making the move is going to set up future Democratic appointed judges for the same and they know it. Don't start the war with the Republicans or they'll come back with it, just like you see them trying to impeach Joe Biden now. Tit for tat.

There you go, Riverdog. Toss in some discussion. It's kind of a boring time in sports and politics right now. Sort of that lull period.

Mariners suck this year. Seahawks are in the slow part of the NFL downtime. One more month to training camp. No election craziness probably until about March of next year? Maybe Feb? Next year should be real interesting.

If you want to start a discussion on business welfare, then go for it. Start a thread about it and I'll participate. But you're acting as if I'm ducking or refusing to debate the issue. The student loan program is in the news and was part of a SCOTUS decision, which is why I brought it up.

I see now where the Biden Administration is trying to restructure his student loan forgiveness program to target it a little better, which is a good start. But it's still water under the bridge and does nothing to make college more affordable and accessible so that students don't have to take out such large loans. And I still don't understand why the big focus on student loans. Something like 20% of all restaurants, many of them mom and pop stores, closed permanently during the pandemic, causing a huge number of them to file for bankruptcy. Why aren't we talking about getting them some relief?

Mixed races/ethnicities are extremely common. I married a 2nd generation Mexican American and had a child by her, so my only daughter (only one that I know of) is 1/2 Hispanic. My only sibling married an Ethiopian and had two boys by her, so my only two nephews are 1/2 black, making the entire next generation our family of a mixed race/ethnicity. Even if it were desirable to separate people by race/ethnicity, we've become such a potpourri of races that it makes the task impossible. Affirmative Action is one of the things that caused these white nationalists to develop such an irrational hatred towards blacks and minorities. I'm not against taking race, ethnicity, national origin, etc, into consideration on individual applicants for admission to a college if they decide that it is in the best interest of their student body to experience more diversity in their interactions with other students. But it can't be something that's institutional or written into law like Affirmative Action.

I'm still having a hard time getting back into baseball. It's too bad as up until about 2002 when the Mariners went into a tailspin, I followed it closely. Baseball was my first love, and I still like reading and watching documentaries about it. I've probably watched Ken Burn's "Baseball" a hundred times.

[NorthHawk]

I saw an interview yesterday with a person from a university who aren't using the affirmative action scale but rather they developed a disadvantaged person scale. What it means is just because your parents have money or graduated from a specific school, the children don't get extra consideration. As well it takes into account the applicants struggles to qualify and they get extra credit for it. For instance a kid who is from a poor background and had to stay home to help with their siblings but still managed to get good grades and be near the top of the class would be considered over someone who had wealthy parents and any tutors they required and ended up with similar or slightly better grades. It's like they valued overcoming the applicants challenges more than their test grades with race not being a consideration. I'm sure there is more to it, but it sounds like a direction that might be valuable in evening out educational opportunities for all.

[RiverDog]

I saw an interview yesterday with a person from a university who aren't using the affirmative action scale but rather they developed a disadvantaged person scale. What it means is just because your parents have money or graduated from a specific school, the children don't get extra consideration. As well it takes into account the applicants struggles to qualify and they get extra credit for it. For instance a kid who is from a poor background and had to stay home to help with their siblings but still managed to get good grades and be near the top of the class would be considered over someone who had wealthy parents and any tutors they required and ended up with similar or slightly better grades. It's like they valued overcoming the applicants challenges more than their test grades with race not being a consideration. I'm sure there is more to it, but it sounds like a direction that might be valuable in evening out educational opportunities for all.

Now that's a program that I could get behind. I am completely OK with a college or university taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages enjoyed/suffered by individual applicants so long as it's done on a case-by-case basis and that it's not done simply by race, ethnicity, etc. There are black students that come from very well off families, too, so I see no reason why they should benefit from an arbitrary racial quota established by the government.

Indeed, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said this:

Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.

No one's ignoring racism or saying that it doesn't exist. But institutionalizing a policy of favoring or weighting one group's applications over another's based simply on race, ethnicity, etc, is absurd. All such a policy is doing is displacing race discrimination from one group to another.

[RiverDog]

I ran across an article, actually one with a pro Affirmative Action take, that had some very surprising numbers regarding the racial make-up of college bachelor's degrees awarded when compared to the overall population of the US:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2018-2019 just over 62% (62.3) of bachelor’s degrees conferred were to white students, while just over 10% (10.3%) went to African American students and just under 15% (14.9%) to Hispanic students.

As of the 2020 census 60.1% of the population was white, 12.2% was African American and 18.5% was Hispanic.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-li ... 00338.html

https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=72

So, we're talking about a population to bachelor's degree disparity of +2.2% for whites, -1.9% for blacks, and -3.6% for Hispanics. What is so damn alarming about those numbers? Does anyone not believe that those minor discrepancies could be attributed to something besides race or ethnicity, like the environment they grew up in, family income, parental education, etc.?

If there was a justification for Affirmative Action some 50 years ago, it has long since passed.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Boy, things have been dead in here for awhile. Perhaps a new topic will liven things up.

SCOTUS has been busy recently, and I can't say that I'm disappointed. To the contrary, most of their decisions I've agreed with.

First of all, they ended Affirmative Action. I didn't like it when they came up with it back in the 70's. They weren't ending discrimination, they were displacing it from one group to another. But if there was a justification for it nearly 50 years ago, it has long since disappeared. The race demographics in this country has changed to such a degree that it's almost impossible to tell who a minority is and who isn't. It irritates the hell out of me when people call Patrick Mahomes a black quarterback, completely ignoring the fact that his mom is white. What percentage of blood is necessary for one to be considered a minority? 50%? White/Caucasians currently make up just 59% of the population, and that percentage is declining at a rate of about 1% per year. It's time that we stop segregating ourselves by race, at least in law if not in practice.

That fact that it was penalizing non-Hispanic, non-African American high-performers was reason enough to end it (I agree with Aseahawk fan). I'm a bridge design engineer, and we've hired foreign national engineers from China and India who pursued their Master's degrees here. I can usually give them broad guidance, and they'll take it and run with it. They'll do the necessary unspoken leg work to figure out how to get the end result; not perfect but substantial. Most of the homegrown hires need more hand holding. The bigger issue I see is these "disadvantaged students" are admitted under lesser standards, and, then, they get there and struggle. Getting into college doesn't all of sudden make these students better, more competent students. You can't undo poor preparation in K-12 (for a variety of reasons) simply by sending them to college.

The other decision that SCOUS rendered that I liked was them torpedoing Biden's college debt relief plan on the basis that he overstepped his authority. The debt relief program was horribly unfair. Why are we giving doctors and lawyers a $10K-$20K gift? If a truck driver who took out a federal SBA loan of some $150,000 to buy a semi-truck and trailer to start their own trucking company, what makes him/her any different than the college grad that accumulated the same amount in student loans in pursuit of their career? The federal government gives out over $40 billion a year in SBA loans. Why is the focus only on educational loans? Since most college grads vote Democratic, one has to wonder if it's not Biden stroking his constituency.

It was a stroke to his constituency. Check out the subreddits for loan forgiveness. They've been expecting it these last three years with the loan repayment pause in effect. Many refused to pay down their loans during the pause because they didn't want to be paying off something that might be forgiven. That's a huge concern that these people have so little financial acumen especially since most of debt holders have twice the likely amount they'd be forgiven. Paying down a balance interest free is a huge boon, even if they couldn't pay their full payment. Then I read stories about people who went into more debt because the pause was in effect. More education (for an occupation that wont' pay enough), buying a house, and buying a car were the big ones that made little sense. They all should have embraced the payment pause to get ahead. I would have been more supportive had it been means tested, but instead it was just a blanket handout that could have potentially signaled universities to increase tuition and fees as well as it would only address the current crop of student debt holders. Higher education is a major part of the problem; as long as loan money is easily available and our society keeps pushing that any degree is the way to go, this will not go away.

And business welfare stinks, too.

I got a kick out of Biden's whining about SCOTUS, calling them "not normal". He didn't mind it when they've handed him a number of victories, including issues on immigration, election laws/redistricting, and birth control. But now that they've come down opposite of him on a couple of issues, they're suddenly 'not normal.' Sorry, Joe, but that's what you guys get for trotting out Hillary in 2016.

Agreed, but I would expect it out of either party. Celebrate the victories your constituency supports while blasting them for the ones that don't. Got to stoke the fires to get them to the polls for you.

[tarlhawk]

I'll go out on a limb (no worries) and identify this 2020 campaign "pledge" was merely a ruse to gather the votes needed to win by the razor thin margin that got him elected. All legislature that affects government revenue has to have its origin in the House (holds the "purse strings") He knows this so pardon my deference when he acts angered of having a phony executive order struck down. All you "sharks" out there can feast on this post which is why I seldom bother posting after a minor attempt months ago. America seems sad now...

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I'll go out on a limb (no worries) and identify this 2020 campaign "pledge" was merely a ruse to gather the votes needed to win by the razor thin margin that got him elected. All legislature that affects government revenue has to have its origin in the House (holds the "purse strings") He knows this so pardon my deference when he acts angered of having a phony executive order struck down. All you "sharks" out there can feast on this post which is why I seldom bother posting after a minor attempt months ago. America seems sad now...

Not much of limb to go out. I believe many agree it was a promise meant to gain votes. Your post doesn't chum the waters all that much.

[RiverDog]

That fact that it was penalizing non-Hispanic, non-African American high-performers was reason enough to end it (I agree with Aseahawk fan). I'm a bridge design engineer, and we've hired foreign national engineers from China and India who pursued their Master's degrees here. I can usually give them broad guidance, and they'll take it and run with it. They'll do the necessary unspoken leg work to figure out how to get the end result; not perfect but substantial. Most of the homegrown hires need more hand holding. The bigger issue I see is these "disadvantaged students" are admitted under lesser standards, and, then, they get there and struggle. Getting into college doesn't all of sudden make these students better, more competent students. You can't undo poor preparation in K-12 (for a variety of reasons) simply by sending them to college.

All good points. I, too, have worked with lots of immigrants, most of whom are at a perceived disadvantage of not being fluent in English. I've often said that I'd take a crew comprised of 100% immigrants over their native born counterparts as they don't have a sense of entitlement like the native born folks do. And for the most part, their offspring do just fine. I had several workers whose kids were in the "running start" program where you earn college credits while still in high school. One of them graduated with her 2 year AA degree a couple weeks after she got her high school diploma.

And I'll add that blacks should take it as an insult that they can't succeed on a level playing field and need the help of the federal government.

The other decision that SCOUS rendered that I liked was them torpedoing Biden's college debt relief plan on the basis that he overstepped his authority. The debt relief program was horribly unfair. Why are we giving doctors and lawyers a $10K-$20K gift? If a truck driver who took out a federal SBA loan of some $150,000 to buy a semi-truck and trailer to start their own trucking company, what makes him/her any different than the college grad that accumulated the same amount in student loans in pursuit of their career? The federal government gives out over $40 billion a year in SBA loans. Why is the focus only on educational loans? Since most college grads vote Democratic, one has to wonder if it's not Biden stroking his constituency.

It was a stroke to his constituency. Check out the subreddits for loan forgiveness. They've been expecting it these last three years with the loan repayment pause in effect. Many refused to pay down their loans during the pause because they didn't want to be paying off something that might be forgiven. That's a huge concern that these people have so little financial acumen especially since most of debt holders have twice the likely amount they'd be forgiven. Paying down a balance interest free is a huge boon, even if they couldn't pay their full payment. Then I read stories about people who went into more debt because the pause was in effect. More education (for an occupation that wont' pay enough), buying a house, and buying a car were the big ones that made little sense. They all should have embraced the payment pause to get ahead. I would have been more supportive had it been means tested, but instead it was just a blanket handout that could have potentially signaled universities to increase tuition and fees as well as it would only address the current crop of student debt holders. Higher education is a major part of the problem; as long as loan money is easily available and our society keeps pushing that any degree is the way to go, this will not go away.

And business welfare stinks, too.

Yeah, I was asking a rhetorical question. Of course, he's stroking his constituency. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that college grads are more likely to vote Democratic. In 2020, Biden had a 14 point edge over Trump with 4 year grads and a whopping 35 point advantage in post graduate degrees.

Interesting that you mention not paying down loans because they might be forgiven. Our family faced a similar uncertainty. Last December, I became a grandpa, and my son-in-law and I were contemplating what kind of 529 college savings fund to start for him. There are two different kinds: An educational savings plan and a pre-paid tuition plan. We opted to go with the former as we don't know what's going to happen with college tuition in the future as if someone like AOC gets their way, college tuition goes away.

I got a kick out of Biden's whining about SCOTUS, calling them "not normal". He didn't mind it when they've handed him a number of victories, including issues on immigration, election laws/redistricting, and birth control. But now that they've come down opposite of him on a couple of issues, they're suddenly 'not normal.' Sorry, Joe, but that's what you guys get for trotting out Hillary in 2016.

Agreed, but I would expect it out of either party. Celebrate the victories your constituency supports while blasting them for the ones that don't. Got to stoke the fires to get them to the polls for you.

Good point. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as much complaining that the left has been doing about SCOTUS, that when you look back at all of their decisions, they are not following a hardline conservative agenda. Sure, it definitely has a conservative tilt, but it's not nearly as biased as the libs are claiming it is, especially when you look at how Trump's appointees have voted.

[RiverDog]

I'll go out on a limb (no worries) and identify this 2020 campaign "pledge" was merely a ruse to gather the votes needed to win by the razor thin margin that got him elected. All legislature that affects government revenue has to have its origin in the House (holds the "purse strings") He knows this so pardon my deference when he acts angered of having a phony executive order struck down. All you "sharks" out there can feast on this post which is why I seldom bother posting after a minor attempt months ago. America seems sad now...

Not much of limb to go out. I believe many agree it was a promise meant to gain votes. Your post doesn't chum the waters all that much.

Yeah, that's not a limb at all, it's terra firma. As I said in my reply to Mack, college grads are much more likely to vote Democratic than they are Republican. From the Pew Research Center:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0

And please, don't let the 'sharks' dissuade you from posting in here. Even when we disagree, we're all pretty decent with each other.

[RiverDog]

All of the polls I've seen indicates that a clear majority of Americans agree with SCOTUS's decision effectively ending Affirmative Action. How in the heck can Biden call this court "not normal"? IMO he's the one that's not normal.

And as long as we're talking about polls, here's one that reflects what I've been saying about student loans, that the emphasis should be on reducing costs for current and future students, thus increasing accessibility:

As President Biden inches toward an announcement on federal student loan forgiveness, a new NPR/Ipsos poll has found slightly more than half of Americans support what has been reported to be Biden's likeliest path: forgiving up to $10,000 per person. But an overwhelming majority – including a majority of those with student loans – said the government should prioritize making college more affordable over forgiving existing student loans.

A whopping 82% said the government's priority should be making college more affordable for current and future students. Just 16% believed forgiving student debts should take priority.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/11049205 ... orgiveness

I think it's safe to say that Biden and the Dems got their priorities seriously out of whack. No wonder Trump is likely going to win in 2024.

[Aseahawkfan]

Seems Biden and the left conveniently use the usual lines when the court votes against something they don't like and are conveniently silent when the court votes for something they like. Just political grist.

Biden should know how this works and come up with a better plan or align the Democratic Party less far left so they can win more seats. Right now they are in whacky land like the Republicans, which means we're all voting for whacky land with maybe a few things we want supporting a certain side.

[RiverDog]

Seems Biden and the left conveniently use the usual lines when the court votes against something they don't like and are conveniently silent when the court votes for something they like. Just political grist.

Biden should know how this works and come up with a better plan or align the Democratic Party less far left so they can win more seats. Right now they are in whacky land like the Republicans, which means we're all voting for whacky land with maybe a few things we want supporting a certain side.

This court isn't the nightmare that Biden and the Dems/libs are making it out to be. In this session alone, the liberal wing of the court has won votes on the Voting Rights Act, immigration, the role of state legislatures in elections, and Native American rights. But the second a decision doesn't go their way, the court is "not normal."

The Dems really need to re-assess their position on Affirmative Action. A huge majority of Americans say that colleges should not be factoring in race in their admissions policies. They're clearly on the wrong side of this issue.

I agree completely with your assessment of the two parties. Both sides are as whacky as I've ever seen them.

[I-5]

Bringing this thread back. I said months ago that the reaction of the SCOTUS reversal of Roe v. Wade is not going to go away anytime soon...in fact, I don't think it's EVER going away until another SCOTUS reaffirms reproductive rights for all. The most recent elections are a string of victories for democrats in right leaning states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio passed an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights despite SCOTUS' ruling. Why would women want to go back 50 years? They don't, even conservative women don't want that. The Middle East is rightfully garnering headlines now, but abortion rights will have a lasting effect on the electorate - it will not be forgotten or accepted as a new reality no matter what SCOTUS decides.

[Aseahawkfan]

Bringing this thread back. I said months ago that the reaction of the SCOTUS reversal of Roe v. Wade is not going to go away anytime soon...in fact, I don't think it's EVER going away until another SCOTUS reaffirms reproductive rights for all. The most recent elections are a string of victories for democrats in right leaning states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio passed an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights despite SCOTUS' ruling. Why would women want to go back 50 years? They don't, even conservative women don't want that. The Middle East is rightfully garnering headlines now, but abortion rights will have a lasting effect on the electorate - it will not be forgotten or accepted as a new reality no matter what SCOTUS decides.

Or the ruling by the SCOTUS that sent this back to the States didn't ban reproductive rights as you and others stated, but went back to the People of each state. They are doing what they're supposed to do: decide for their state how they want to handle it. It is the system working as intended.

[c_hawkbob]

Bringing this thread back. I said months ago that the reaction of the SCOTUS reversal of Roe v. Wade is not going to go away anytime soon...in fact, I don't think it's EVER going away until another SCOTUS reaffirms reproductive rights for all. The most recent elections are a string of victories for democrats in right leaning states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio passed an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights despite SCOTUS' ruling. Why would women want to go back 50 years? They don't, even conservative women don't want that. The Middle East is rightfully garnering headlines now, but abortion rights will have a lasting effect on the electorate - it will not be forgotten or accepted as a new reality no matter what SCOTUS decides.

Or the ruling by the SCOTUS that sent this back to the States didn't ban reproductive rights as you and others stated, but went back to the People of each state. They are doing what they're supposed to do: decide for their state how they want to handle it. It is the system working as intended.

Except the right has no intention of honoring the whole "let the states decide" thing. They are trying hard to enact a nationwide ban and many are even running on exactly that promise. And even those that aren't are bemoaning the fact that abortion rights are actually making it on state's ballots! Rick Santorum said:

“You put very sexy issues like abortion and marijuana on the ballot and a lot of young people come out and vote.”

Oh NO, not that!

“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country,”

The article I took these quotes from goes on to say:

Really, Santorum is just saying the quiet part out loud. Republicans don’t want people—especially young people and historically marginalized communities—to vote. This is why they want to limit voting hours and voting by mail. If everyone voted who is eligible to vote, many more progressive policies would become law and undercut the entire GOP platform.

And I agree.

[Aseahawkfan]

Man, the myths of politics. Not sure why you buy that stuff c-bob. You been alive longer than me and seen this crap for longer than I have.

These people are not voting because they don't care to look past where their noses are being pointed, not because they can't vote. Not on the right or the left with their bitching about political problems neither party ever fixes. They are too caught up in the "culture wars" to vote for real progress in America. Every time some Democrat focuses all their attention on abortion, alphabet sexuality, and race as their issue, the wealthy smile. Every time a Republican focuses their attention on immigration, crime, and gun rights, the wealthy smile. Exactly what they intended while they take all the money and property while we're supposed to worship the "job creators" the Republicans are flat out giving lower taxes too and the Democrats are giving tax breaks and spending big money paying to build their factories so working class tax sheep have somewhere to work. They both run the bill up and put the money on us or some foreign government's citizens.

Someone needs to really push socialized medicine through and get more bang for our buck for our tax money, but these Parties are too busy pulling noses in the direction of culture war BS while they enrich themselves.

Be nice to see Americans cut through the BS on each political side and get some real policies pushed to help working people live better before the millionaires and billionaires move out of the country and flip all the working people off while saying, "Have fun paying off the deficit you idiotic little tax sheep. Why don't you go watch a the police are racist video or worry about the immigrants more? We're busy using your tax money to make more money for ourselves and don't want you to notice."

These parties have Americans focusing on the wrong things in both parties and not paying attention to where the money is going and who is benefitting from it. Until that is the primary focus of Americans, the rest of this is political theatre.

I'm personally tired of watching it. Them people can vote just fine c-bob. They been able to vote for years. Just like all the poor Republican voters can vote just fine. A vote is only as good as the person you're voting for and they aren't getting done what really needs to get done. They haven't been for a while. They are running a game on us and it needs to be stopped at some point. Until Americans start voting for real fixes and people that will actually make the necessary changes, this is wheel spinning.

I still ask all my Republican voting friends, "Explain to me why they haven't dealt immigration by punishing companies employing illegal immigrants? And why do they keep cutting taxes when we need better and more police to deal with the crime problem, not less? Why keep complaining about a deficit and cutting taxes, when we already can't pay it? What is that accomplishing?"

Instead of complaining about Republicans, how about asking Democrats why they are focusing so much time and energy on alphabet sexuality and blaming cops for racism, while they're doing absolutely nothing to improve the medical system in America and really sell that as a primary issue? Why the hell is the main issue in America abortion and Donald Trump's lawsuits, while their big spending bills are building factories on the cheap for chip makers?

[RiverDog]

The Democrats have had multiple chances over the past 50 years to pass legislation that would legalize abortion. They had control of the House and Senate at one point or another during the Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden Administrations and never even brought one bill up for a vote even though that they knew that one day, that Roe v Wade could be overturned. So please, spare me your whining over some states implementing what you see as extreme measures.

[c_hawkbob]

So please, spare me your whining over some states implementing what you see as extreme measures.

You addressing me? I ain't whining pal, I'm laughing!

[I-5]

No one is whining. This issue will continue to be a win for any party that support’s and respects reproductive rights for every woman, whether state or federal. We may as well try to take women’s votes away.

[Aseahawkfan]

Why exactly do the Republicans control the House of Representatives if this is the issue you claim it is? If it gets taken care of in the States, then it won't be as a big a national issue.

If Trump wins again in 2024 and holds onto to the House or even worse flips the Senate while holding on to the House, I wonder who will be laughing then.

Be real nice if the Democrats could focus on some winning economic issues rather than culture war BS.

[RiverDog]

So please, spare me your whining over some states implementing what you see as extreme measures.

You addressing me? I ain't whining pal, I'm laughing!

No, I'm not addressing you specifically. If I was, I would quote you directly in my response and have no hesitation in doing so. I'm addressing Democrats that have railed about the overturning of Roe v Wade. If that includes you, then fine.

Thee Dems only have themselves to blame, but it's a lot easier and effective as a dog whistle to their supporters to blame Trump and his SCOTUS appointments.

Sometimes I get the impression that abortion issue is too valuable to the Democrats to solve by passing a bill when they have control of the White House and Congress. They need it to help rally the troops.

[I-5]

Maybe you can educate me, but why would the democracts need to pass a federal bill guaranteeing permanent abortion rights after Roe v Wade was passed? i geniunely don't know the answer. Can bills be permanent and never repealed?

[Aseahawkfan]

Maybe you can educate me, but why would the democracts need to pass a federal bill guaranteeing permanent abortion rights after Roe v Wade was passed? i geniunely don't know the answer. Can bills be permanent and never repealed?

Roe vs. Wade was never passed. It was a court case that the Supreme Court decided based on a privacy right.The Fourteenth Amendment was used in Roe. vs. Wade which provided a Constitutionally protected right to abortion under the guise of privacy laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

That is why Riverdog rightly believes that if Democrats want abortion as a right, then ensconce it as a right rather than an add on to the right to privacy. The Constitution doesn't even give a right to privacy. The right to privacy is built off The Fourth Amendment and has come to encompass several other Amendments.

It's like the Commerce Clause. A bunch of additional laws are built from implied protections or lack of protections built into the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States

That's why it was so easy to overturn because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. It doesn't exist.

RD thinks the Democrats should settle the issue and include it in the Constitution like a right to vote, free speech, or bear arms. They should have done it when they had a clear majority.

I thought you understood how abortion came to be the law of the land, I5. Nothing legislative was passed. It was an interpretation by the court using The 14th Amendment and privacy laws.

[RiverDog]

Maybe you can educate me, but why would the democracts need to pass a federal bill guaranteeing permanent abortion rights after Roe v Wade was passed? i geniunely don't know the answer. Can bills be permanent and never repealed?

As ASF said, Roe v. Wade wasn't "passed". It wasn't a law. It was a decision handed down in 1973 in which SCOTUS used their interpretation of the Constitution to declare a state law restricting abortion as unconstitutional. What the Roberts court did was rule that a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which had been ruled by lower courts as unconstitutional based on the Roe V Wade decision, not to be unconstitutional as they could not find language in the constitution that gave a woman a right to an abortion, overturning the RvW decision.

For 50 years since RvW was handed down, it was known by everyone that depending on the whims of SCOTUS, it could be overturned. Every time there was a SCOTUS opening and a nominee submitted, one of the first questions that would come up was how they would rule if a RvW challenge came before them, and most, if not all, refused to answer while the Senate and the media went through their decisions and writings with a fine-toothed comb looking for a hint on how they might rule.

To be fair, a federal law, or any other law for that matter, can be ruled by a court as being unconstitutional. But a court would have to find that the law was in violation of a specific clause of the Constitution. It's quite a bit more difficult than reviewing a previous court's written interpretation. Courts are a little more reluctant to overrule a law passed by the Legislative Branch of government, or "legislating from the bench". What this court said was that they found no language in the Constitution that gave a woman the right to an abortion, essentially tossing it back to the states (or the US Congress) to pass a law that addressed the issue.

Following the Row v. Wade decision in Jan. of 1973, the Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress from 1977-81, from 1993-95, and from 2009-11, so they had the political firepower to pass an abortion law had it been a priority for them. They knew, as everyone else did, that a conservative court could one day overturn RvW, and they were well aware of the court's ideological make-up. The conservatives have been in the majority for nearly the entire time since 1973. Carter didn't appoint a single justice. Clinton and Obama appointed 2 apiece, Biden 1 for a total of 5. In the meantime, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Trump appointed 10. It's only because SCOTUS is very reluctant to overturn its own decision as it's happened in just 1/2 of one percent of previously decided cases brought before them (Brown v. Board of Education being the most notable) that RvW was left to stand.

https://www.history.com/news/landmark-s ... overturned

But the Dems ducked the issue. They did not want to stir up a hornet's nest and give their opponents a rallying cry, leaving sleeping dogs lay. They would much rather see RvW struck down so that they could go on the offensive and use the issue to motivate their own troops as we are seeing today. The Dems got what they wanted, a campaign issue.

I'm actually pro-choice within the first trimester of a pregnancy. But I had to agree with this court in that there is no clear language in the Constitution that grants a woman a right to an abortion. The RvW decision was a huge reach IMO.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

No one is whining. This issue will continue to be a win for any party that support’s and respects reproductive rights for every woman, whether state or federal. We may as well try to take women’s votes away.

Not in the same league with that comparison. One is a Supreme Court decision/ruling on a state's law's constitutional standing; the other is the 19th Amendment of the Constitution. It would take ratification of a new amendment to repeal the 19th amendment which is a difficult thing to do compared to a Supreme Court decision. It's why River is pointing out the opportunities to pass a federal law on the issue. There were times since Roe that passing a law would have been easier, and, once passed, would have been very difficult to replace.

[RiverDog]

No one is whining. This issue will continue to be a win for any party that support’s and respects reproductive rights for every woman, whether state or federal. We may as well try to take women’s votes away.

Not in the same league with that comparison. One is a Supreme Court decision/ruling on a state's law's constitutional standing; the other is the 19th Amendment of the Constitution. It would take ratification of a new amendment to repeal the 19th amendment which is a difficult thing to do compared to a Supreme Court decision. It's why River is pointing out the opportunities to pass a federal law on the issue. There were times since Roe that passing a law would have been easier, and, once passed, would have been very difficult to replace.

A law would be much more difficult for a court to overturn. For one, SCOTUS can rule only on issues that are brought before it. It's a long journey for a case to make it to SCOTUS.

Secondly, the court would have to find a part of the US Constitution of which the law violates. That's quite a bit different than not being able to find a passage that the Constitution supports as was the case in the overturning of RvW.

Say, for example, that the Democrats passed a law along the lines of the RvW decision where states were prohibited from passing a law restricting abortion within the first trimester, leaving it up to the states to determine in the 2nd trimester, and banning abortions in the 3rd trimester. Where in the Constitution is it that would make a law like that unconstitutional?

The closest would be the 5th Amendment that states that no person "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and in order to do that, they would have to define what a person is, in other words, they would have to delve into the worlds of science and religion and define where life begins. When does a collection of cells become a human being? Some people can justifiably argue that life begins in as short as 6 weeks from conception, others as long as 6 months.

So while it's possible that a federal law regulating abortion could be brought to SCOTUS and that they could overturn it, it's not practical to think that they would want to come within a country mile of it.