Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: Shocking, the infotainment cable networks actually did something credible today,

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,038
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,926 Times in 13,193 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Second, Kagan bought out an interesting point, if all the same circumstances exist today that existed prior to the last three appointees to the Court taking their seats, when the same Roberts Court upheld Roe vs Wade, why now then did Mississippi pass that law? The thought was given consideration given that in the Mississippi legislature it was echoed often that they could do it now cause of the Trump Justices.

    What she was pointing out was that the Court’s own integrity is at stake, and could be considered as nothing more than just another political entity
    Kagan actually makes a raft of logical fallacies in this, probably not intended though.

    First she makes an Argument to probability. Next she commits an Historical fallacy. This is the inverse of the Historian's fallacy. She is applying the past to the present. While that might hold as case law, it is sort of moot when the Supreme Court is the original generator of case law and has reversed decisions in the past. Then she brings up what might be called a Divinest fallacy by speculating she knows what's in the plantiff's minds and the reasons for the case's timing.
    On the whole, it's a weak set of arguments and positions about the case. It argues none of the merits, essentially trying to question the case on political rather than legal grounds.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,175 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    You make some valid points, but none that would sway this Court, their view isn't about the morality of abortion nor the religious aspects of it but rather that it does not fall under the protection of the Constitution.

    As I noted, the probability is that they are going to punt on the Mississippi law thereby leaving up to the States to decide for themselves
    From what I have heard, most of the Justices are looking for middle ground.

    And even if the Supreme Court establishes that abortion is not protected under the Constitution, Roes Vs. Wade did establish precedence!

    Courts will always take precedence in most matters.

    So the justices do have a way to legally rule on this- based on precedence!

    This will be referred back to Congress by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court Justices do not want to try and legislate this! They will make Congress do it's job!

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    From what I have heard, most of the Justices are looking for middle ground.

    And even if the Supreme Court establishes that abortion is not protected under the Constitution, Roes Vs. Wade did establish precedence!

    Courts will always take precedence in most matters.

    So the justices do have a way to legally rule on this- based on precedence!

    This will be referred back to Congress by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court Justices do not want to try and legislate this! They will make Congress do it's job!
    That's where the middle ground comes in, they'll ignore the precedence, the did it with Holder, and let the Mississippi law stand, and Roe vs Wade will resurface in future Courts eventually winding up again in the SCOTUS, but not now when everyone is watching

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Diesel (12-01-2021)

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Kagan actually makes a raft of logical fallacies in this, probably not intended though.

    First she makes an Argument to probability. Next she commits an Historical fallacy. This is the inverse of the Historian's fallacy. She is applying the past to the present. While that might hold as case law, it is sort of moot when the Supreme Court is the original generator of case law and has reversed decisions in the past. Then she brings up what might be called a Divinest fallacy by speculating she knows what's in the plantiff's minds and the reasons for the case's timing.
    On the whole, it's a weak set of arguments and positions about the case. It argues none of the merits, essentially trying to question the case on political rather than legal grounds.
    Nothing personal, but that is all bullshit, fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, pretty obvious you copied and pasted off of some contrarian as Turley attempting to undercut the point for conservatives that Kagan was making. Not that it is relevant, but that is exactly what Billy Barr did, load in the legal mumble jumble which was easily spotted as bullshit when one actually listened to what he was saying

    She just made a simple consideration, one I noted as interesting, and relevant to how Americans will view the integrity of the Supreme Court and legal proceedings going forward. As was said, if all the circumstances present today existed three years ago before the three ideologues were added to the Court why now did Mississippi decide to pass their law? Given the fact that they themselves admitted it was because of the three recent appointees it proves her point

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,566 Times in 17,093 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    REALLY ... WHY DO THE DIMS ALWAYS VOTE AS A BLOCK ???

    BTW ... GUESS YOU FORGOT SHE HAD ZERO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE ...
    The Dems don't. Do you pay any attention to the judges votes? The Reds come very close to a complete party vote.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    they aired uninterrupted the questions and responses from the Supreme Court regarding the Mississippi abortion law. Of course they all added their framed views as soon as the recordings ended, but for close to two hours they were actually news channels

    Couple of takeaways, based on the questions, first, probability exists they will uphold the Mississippi law leaving abortion up to the individual State, but the question remains if they will continue onward and just scrap Roe vs Wade

    Second, Kagan bought out an interesting point, if all the same circumstances exist today that existed prior to the last three appointees to the Court taking their seats, when the same Roberts Court upheld Roe vs Wade, why now then did Mississippi pass that law? The thought was given consideration given that in the Mississippi legislature it was echoed often that they could do it now cause of the Trump Justices.

    What she was pointing out was that the Court’s own integrity is at stake, and could be considered as nothing more than just another political entity

    And lastly, there is a reason Thomas never asks questions, he is a dimwit. Asked one question totally unrelated to discussions and was embarrassed when the lawyer easily point out his inanity
    I didn't see any of the hearing and just looked up Thomas's question. What an idiot.

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post
    REALLY ... WHY DO THE DIMS ALWAYS VOTE AS A BLOCK ???

    BTW ... GUESS YOU FORGOT SHE HAD ZERO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE ...
    You're as stupid as Clarence Thomas is.

    https://www.biography.com/law-figure/elena-kagan

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gin Saké View Post
    Emanations and penumbras. That's the vaunted credibility that has existed since Douglas was shitting all over the Constitution.
    The Constitution can't survive without emanations and penumbras.

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    If the SC upholds the MS law, it really changes little. All the states that choose to allow abortion after 15 weeks can do so.

    Since 93% of abortions occur within 13 weeks most abortions will still occur.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    PostmodernProphet (12-02-2021)

  12. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Abortion is a reality that will never go away- regardless to whether it is legal or illegal.

    Teen sex is a reality that will never go away- regardless to whether it is legal or illegal.

    Rape and Teen Rape are realities as well, and it will never go away either- no matter what the Supreme Court has to say about that.

    There will always be certain Birth Defects, and certain health risks to certain mothers who become pregnant- regardless to what the SUPREME COURT has to say about that.

    These are all realities that are uncomfortable for most people to deal with, discuss, or even fully understand.

    This is why it becomes crazy to just outlaw something that is rendered as an uncomfortable reality to some.

    Here is the REALITY that is the most important- MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE ABOUT ABORTIONS- BUT HAVING THAT SAID- MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE ABOUT MAKING ABORTIONS ILLEGAL!

    Most Americans feel that a woman's choice is the best choice for America!

    I do not think the Supreme Court will ignore this REALITY!

    My plea is not directed at you- IT IS DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!

    THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY- LET'S KEEP IT FREE- AND LET'S NOT MAKE POLITICAL FRINGE GROUP DECISIONS ON THE SUPREME COURT PLEASE!

    LET'S HAVE RESPECT FOR DEMOCRACY AND LET DEMOCRACY WORK BY ALLOWING A MAJORITY TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA- AND NOT SOME HOLIER-THAN-THOU POLITICALLY LIFE-TIME APPOINTED PANEL OF JUDGES!

    Thank you very much!
    It doesn't matter what most Americans think. Justice cannot be decided by majority rule. Fundamental truths have to be true even when humans are stupid.

    That a woman, and a man, have a right to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions is a fundamental truth.

  13. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Did you think a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is ever possible? Even Jefferson abandoned that notion when he purchased Louisiana in 1800
    Ask him how we regulate television and computers.

  14. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    From what I have heard, most of the Justices are looking for middle ground.

    And even if the Supreme Court establishes that abortion is not protected under the Constitution, Roes Vs. Wade did establish precedence!

    Courts will always take precedence in most matters.

    So the justices do have a way to legally rule on this- based on precedence!

    This will be referred back to Congress by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court Justices do not want to try and legislate this! They will make Congress do it's job!
    Congress can't modify the Constitution.

  15. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    13,926
    Thanks
    4,121
    Thanked 4,815 Times in 3,615 Posts
    Groans
    2,271
    Groaned 367 Times in 352 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    That's where the middle ground comes in, they'll ignore the precedence, the did it with Holder, and let the Mississippi law stand, and Roe vs Wade will resurface in future Courts eventually winding up again in the SCOTUS, but not now when everyone is watching
    Interesting. I'm honestly not sure what will happen. What leads you to this conclusion?

  16. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,566 Times in 17,093 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    CSPAN is running the audio right now. Kav showed his cards real fast. He lied to get on the court,

  17. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Did you think a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is ever possible? Even Jefferson abandoned that notion when he purchased Louisiana in 1800
    Jefferson is credited as the intellectual founder of the Democratic Party. It stands to reason that he would be a notorious hypocrite. If you want to have a pretend constitution, there's always the UK. I'm a Federalist at heart, so, I can't claim to be a strict constructionist. Nevertheless, it was Adams who pointed out the need to have written constitutions of government, so that we don't wind up where progressives want us to be, which is without a constitution altogether.

Similar Threads

  1. Three top cable news networks cut away from Trump speech
    By Bourbon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2018, 06:45 AM
  2. "Three top cable news networks cut away from Trump speech"
    By archives in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-29-2018, 04:39 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 02:55 PM
  4. Obama the non-credible filth
    By transwarpdrive in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2016, 10:14 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 06:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •