Don't you just love it when non-lawyers try to explain the nuances of law to lawyers?

(09-07-2021 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't you just love it when non-lawyers try to explain the nuances of law to lawyers?

just stick around... he'll keep digging.

The point of this post is how the devil is in the details of the Republican party taking up the pro-life position 40 years ago. Devil is now here wanting it's payment. You might brush this off thinking it will go away, but it didn't in the 70's until we put a patch on it. Take away the patch and someone is going to feel the heat. Who do you think that will be? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

I found Scorps hero

https://twitter.com/ben_brown_md/status/...30080?s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

Put this post next to mental gymnastics in the dictionary

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I put it in the mental defective category.

(09-07-2021 07:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s probably worth pointing out that they did not analyze the constitutionality of the law and did not issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

This. Any celebrating or despairing by either side is premature.

It’s rather ironic a liberal would title a thread “Dred Scott” while pushing the narrative of Margaret Sanger.

Sometimes life is stranger than fiction.

(09-13-2021 06:01 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Learned an interesting stat today to help put things in perspective. Up until about 1800 in the U.S. (or 1900 for most of the rest of the world), at least 4 out of every 10 children born did not make it to 5 years old. Now the child mortality rate is well less than 1 out of 100.

The current rate of abortions per live births is about 20% from a quick google search. So even if one adds that 20% to the child mortality rate (which is absurd), one still gets a child mortality rate less than half that of what the human race has experienced during 99%+ of it's existence.

So the next time you try to brainwash yourself into thinking government, technology or society is evil because it has enabled abortion, you can remind yourself that despite the procedure, well over twice as many kids are surviving past age 4 today than just 100-200 years ago. And we have government, technology and society in general to thank for that. No one else.

It's interesting that conservatives live by the idea of resisting change by only looking at the negative, while hiding from the overwhelming positive.

So. With your logic we should kill people when they turn 37 also because that was the average life expectancy in the US in 1800. Brilliant.

(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I get that the person who started this thread is here for the trolling and not for the enlightenment. But still, that OP is one of the most genuinely weird/false/ahistorical comments I’ve seen in a long time.

Virtually every word/phrase in the OP contains an assertion or implication that is somewhere between a lie and a fantasy. But life is short and I’m not going to unpack each one of them.

Even so, it’s worth pointing out that both Scott v Sandford and Roe v Wade were acts of judicial aggression by SCOTUS, striking down state and federal laws that offended individual SCOTUS members. The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.

And if SCOTUS should now change or repudiate 48 years of precedent relating to Roe v Wade and it’s judicial progeny… well, Roe v Wade repudiated judicial precedents going back to the Colonial times in one fell swoop. Roe’s proponents didn’t care about “decades of precedent” in 1973, and they don’t care about it now.

It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.

You neglect that finding a proper defendant is a *****. I mean, the case in question cant. Who do you think would the proper defendant?

The only one I can think of is the entire populace of the United States.

Once you have someone exercise the provisions of the law, no problemo.

But, you really havent brain-worked yourself out of the specific provisions of the bill, the structure of the lawsuit you ***** about, let alone the result (i.e. the Supreme no-tabled the issue, i.e. no opinion on the root issues).

But leave it to you for the deep thought mound of rhetorical goo you type in the OP.

(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.

It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.

Statutes do not — by definition, *cannot* — overturn judicial precedent. Only new judicial opinions can do that. Until the courts publish their opinions, no past judicial opinions have been overturned.

(09-13-2021 08:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You neglect that finding a proper defendant is a *****. I mean, the case in question cant. Who do you think would the proper defendant?

The only one I can think of is the entire populace of the United States.

Once you have someone exercise the provisions of the law, no problemo.

But, you really havent brain-worked yourself out of the specific provisions of the bill, the structure of the lawsuit you ***** about, let alone the result (i.e. the Supreme no-tabled the issue, i.e. no opinion on the root issues).

But leave it to you for the deep thought mound of rhetorical goo you type in the OP.

I'd think a conservative would be more worried about this than a liberal. I mean think of all the vigilante laws liberals can now craft against gun rights, religious freedom or even those who cheat the IRS or the government in any way. The possibilities are endless. Remember it's all about the fear that there's a bounty on your head, and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. I'm sure this really gets you excited. But this is the kind of anarchy society we expect after putting such extremists on the court.

Despite all of that, common sense says that if the government deputizes citizens to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, it's by extension a party to that act, and thus a defendant. If the extremists on the court don't view it that way, then refer to what I wrote above to get excited about the new society we'll live in.

This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's payment is just plain naive.

(09-13-2021 09:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 01:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 06:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The Court’s recent decision to let the new Texas law work its way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review is, by contrast, an act of judicial restraint.

It wasn't a decision to let the new law work it's way through the process of trial court analysis and appellate review. That was going to happen REGARDLESS. The decision was to overturn decades of precedent WHILE this process took place. That is NOT judicial restraint.

Statutes do not — by definition, *cannot* — overturn judicial precedent. Only new judicial opinions can do that. Until the courts publish their opinions, no past judicial opinions have been overturned.

Anything the Supreme Court does can set a precedent. Despite no formal ruling, they still decided to let a blatantly unconstitutional law go into effect when they had the opportunity to stop it. If that can't change precedent I don't know what can.

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Despite all of that, common sense says that if the government deputizes citizens to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, it's by extension a party to that act, and thus a defendant. If the extremists on the court don't view it that way, then refer to what I wrote above to get excited about the new society we'll live in.

You wouldn't be aware of "common sense" if someone shoved it up your a55 and set fire to it.

You literally have SUB-ZERO capacity to comprehend and identify common sense in anything you have ever opined on here.

And that is not meant as a personal attack, its an acknowledgement of reality that you have no conception or awareness of at all.

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Some people just love the sound of their own voice. It doesn't matter how insane their words are.

(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.

(09-15-2021 01:28 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is what I mean about the deal with the devil the GOP made 40 years ago to get Reagan elected. Anyone who didn't expect the devil to come calling for it's [sic] payment is just plain naive.

And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's [sic] payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.

The so-called "voodoo" economics ushered in a remarkably long period of prosperity, so much so that pretty much all of western Europe took note and emulated--or went even further.

As far as the Equal Rights Amendment, nothing deserved more to die.

The pro-life movement was really more evangelicals and neocons than libertarian conservatives/republicans. I am very much in the latter group, but really did not see Reagan leaning too far toward the former.

(09-15-2021 02:27 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Anything the Supreme Court does can set a precedent. Despite no formal ruling, they still decided to let a blatantly unconstitutional law go into effect when they had the opportunity to stop it. If that can't change precedent I don't know what can.

The allegation of “blatant unconstitutionality” of this law is precisely the matter at issue before the judicial system. You demand that the Supreme Court decide the issue before hearing the case — indeed, before the trial court hears the case — and suggest that failing to do so would be a reversal of judicial precedent. I’m sorry but that’s just not how judicial precedent works. Not even close.

(09-15-2021 01:28 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And exactly what was that deal with the devil?

Besides the obvious "voodoo" economics once Reagan was in office, the party in the very late 70's had a change of heart on the Equal Rights Amendment right before it's full ratification, and of course started to side with the pro-life movement at that time as well. They quite literally made a deal with the devil to expand their tent over the Prohibitionist types at the expense of society. And just like in the 1920's and 30's, the devil inevitably comes for it's payment. History repeats itself over and over on this. There's a rhythm to it.

It was approximately the same time (1970’s) that the Democrats (at the National level) embraced the pro-choice movement on abortion. Some consider *that* to have been (and still is today) “a deal with the Devil”. But using that kind of descriptive language has had no impact on Democrats/pro-choice people, and it is equally meaningless when used against Republicans/pro-life people.