US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

Perhaps SCOTUS was right to discover that it wasn’t its place to place to make abortion legal everywhere in America?

Religious peoples rights is something you should be glad are being defended…

I agree that SCOTUS shouldn't be making law, and I do think the Roe v Wade was making law. I think legislators should write abortion into law at the national level because clearly this is what the majority of people want. It is however, somewhat hypocritical for this SCOTUS to censure the activism of the 60s on the one hand, and then to do exactly the same thing with the LGBTQ website issue. This is really bad. This is blatant political activism on the part of SCOTUS. While we could have argued that everything up until this point had been due to Mitch McConnell and his shenanigans in the Senate. This one feels like they've overstepped. I think there will be consequences

 

[Kieran]

I agree that SCOTUS shouldn't be making law, and I do think the Roe v Wade was making law. I think legislators should write abortion into law at the national level because clearly this is what the majority of people want. It is however, somewhat hypocritical for this SCOTUS to censure the activism of the 60s on the one hand, and then to do exactly the same thing with the LGBTQ website issue. This is really bad. This is blatant political activism on the part of SCOTUS. While we could have argued that everything up until this point had been due to Mitch McConnell and his shenanigans in the Senate. This one feels like they've overstepped. I think there will be consequences

That’s it. Judge should interpret laws, not create them. Voters should decide on the issue of abortion. In the most recent elections since Roe was dumped, I believe that in traditionally Republican-dominated constituencies, there were protest votes against the Republican candidates in favour of pro-abortion candidates? I’m not sure of the details because I don’t closely follow American politics, but if this is the case, then it’s positive in terms of voters protesting against their own tribe, and it’s positive in terms of putting that issue in the hands of voters, where it belongs.

My own feeling on the make up of SCOTUS in America is that neither wing should be allowed to hold a majority, because neither are trustworthy when it comes to politicising the job, and nor should appointments be for life.

As for the madness of trans and the ALPHABETTI+ mafia, perhaps a SCOTUS session could announce from on high that women are adult biological females - except there’s now a SCOTUS judge who takes the radical left cop out of saying she doesn’t know what a woman is because she ain’t a biologist..

 

[Kieran]

I think your missing the point, SCOTUS in the past reviewed specific cases , such as the original Roe vs Wade.

Regardless of where you fall on the abortion issue, a specific case frames it per certain parameters and details which the court then argues.

Speaking of religious rights , in the US there
several landmark cases in the 30’s and 40’s of Jehovahs witness children who refused to recite the pledge of allegiance on religious grounds, the Court ultimately reversed an earlier decision and said the majority could not impose their standards on a religious minority.

The issue is fascinating because per your point , the court did a 180 on an earlier court decision, so when a state regulation mandating saluting the flag & the pledge, some Justices changed course dramatically and even stated they regretted the prior court ruling. Again it was a specific case where the children & parents refused to comply with the State mandate. One of the points was their passive moral stance didnt harm others.

It established the principle that the First Amendment prevents the government from forcing private citizens to recite or convey an ideological messages they find morally objectionable. In law circles, it’s called “the compelled speech doctrine.”

So if someone requested from the web designer a wedding website for same sex couple, is that imposing on the Web designer a message they find morally objectionable? That could be argued per the First Amendment, but IMO you need the meat & flesh of an actual case to play it out. What if the couple told the webdesigner, that recognizing her stance, they would be responsible for all the worded content? What if the Designer feels as an individual she has the right to refuse any request, just as, say, she might find it morally objectionable to design a website for marrying Nazis who advocate ethnic genocide? Im babbling but my point is an actual case gets into some messy untidy weeds, which is not always a terrible thing.

So protecting religious rights is important, but how you get to that point also matters.

You’re not babbling, you’re making reasonable points, and laying it out in a way that shows how complex these things are, even when we try to make them more simple. By the way, I find it bizarre and strange that a government might force its people to salute the flag, and make a pledge of allegiance. I suppose most countries have oddities in their laws that need revisiting periodically.

The compelled speech thing is now a current problem. It can be smuggled in through hate speech laws which insist we address a person by the gender opposite to the one they are. I almost faced an incident yesterday in a gelato shop in Dublin. The four youngsters in the queue before me were obviously young men dressed and decorated in a way that could be taken for trans. They ordered and paid, then I ordered and paid as they stood next to me, praising their ice cream.

As I paid, I didn’t notice I’d dropped a fifty on the floor, and one of the lads pointed that out to me. I picked it up, smiled and said, “cheers, chap,” as I do when addressing gentlemen. I didn’t do it to be rude or provocative, I was genuinely grateful. They all looked at me and it was momentarily awkward but I collected my order and left, still smiling gratefully towards them.

I know that we live in times where calling somebody “chap” might see me forced to retract and address them how they prefer to be addressed, under hate speech laws. It’s an issue that’s swelling up around us, like sewage..

 

[Moxie]

That's exactly the point I'm making, the door might just have been opened to using the First Amendment as protection for people who refuse to acknowledge this fake gender identification. Truth is the ultimate shield after all. I guess that possibility is too facile and reactionary for you? If you would just avoid the emotions, I appreciate it's difficult for you, you would seem like less of a putz

I'm sure you know the difference between and "emotion" and an "opinion." You just forgot for a second.

 

[Federberg]

I'm sure you know the difference between and "emotion" and an "opinion." You just forgot for a second.

if it was a one off one might say it was opinion. But it's a bit beyond that now. You're a grown a$$ woman. Detach a little bit, pretend you're all growed up

 

[Moxie]

I think your missing the point, SCOTUS in the past reviewed specific cases , such as the original Roe vs Wade.

Regardless of where you fall on the abortion issue, a specific case frames it per certain parameters and details which the court then argues.

Speaking of religious rights , in the US there
several landmark cases in the 30’s and 40’s of Jehovahs witness children who refused to recite the pledge of allegiance on religious grounds, the Court ultimately reversed an earlier decision and said the majority could not impose their standards on a religious minority.

The issue is fascinating because per your point , the court did a 180 on an earlier court decision, so when a state regulation mandating saluting the flag & the pledge, some Justices changed course dramatically and even stated they regretted the prior court ruling. Again it was a specific case where the children & parents refused to comply with the State mandate. One of the points was their passive moral stance didnt harm others.

It established the principle that the First Amendment prevents the government from forcing private citizens to recite or convey an ideological messages they find morally objectionable. In law circles, it’s called “the compelled speech doctrine.”

So if someone requested from the web designer a wedding website for same sex couple, is that imposing on the Web designer a message they find morally objectionable? That could be argued per the First Amendment, but IMO you need the meat & flesh of an actual case to play it out. What if the couple told the webdesigner, that recognizing her stance, they would be responsible for all the worded content? What if the Designer feels as an individual she has the right to refuse any request, just as, say, she might find it morally objectionable to design a website for marrying Nazis who advocate ethnic genocide? Im babbling but my point is an actual case gets into some messy untidy weeds, which is not always a terrible thing.

So protecting religious rights is important, but how you get to that point also matters.

Good post. And here is where protecting religious freedom clashes with other established rights. Same-sex marriage is established law. Some religions don't recognize it, as is their right. Marriage is a contract with the State, and is recognized as such. However, if your church, mosque, temple won't marry you under their rules and beliefs, that's up to them. I think we all agree that the ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis is wrong-headed, given it was a theoretical, if nothing else. And it's an over-step, on the part of the court. And the over-reach, with this current court is inclined to protect the Christian religious POV. I mean, what if 303 Creative had been Jewish Orthodox, or Muslim, and objected, in a hypothetical, on religious grounds? Would the court have been so activist? Somehow, it's hard to think so.

 

[Moxie]

if it was a one off one might say it was opinion. But it's a bit beyond that now. You're a grown a$$ woman. Detach a little bit, pretend you're all growed up

I'm just responding. You're the one who gets his knickers in a twist about my posts. You're so convinced by your position on transgender issues, but frankly I'd forgotten that. It's why I abdicated from the PC threads. You brought it back to this thread, rather out of left-field. But you do you. It kind of bums me out if you're going to spoil this thread, too, though. Opinions not welcome if they're not yours? I'm sorry that you don't like how I characterize your position, but that's how it seems to me, that's why we discuss, rather than just sneer.

 

[Moxie]

That’s it. Judge should interpret laws, not create them. Voters should decide on the issue of abortion. In the most recent elections since Roe was dumped, I believe that in traditionally Republican-dominated constituencies, there were protest votes against the Republican candidates in favour of pro-abortion candidates? I’m not sure of the details because I don’t closely follow American politics, but if this is the case, then it’s positive in terms of voters protesting against their own tribe, and it’s positive in terms of putting that issue in the hands of voters, where it belongs.

There is a basic problem with how Roe was created, yes, which allowed states to dismantle it. As you say, the American population is largely in favor of the right to abortion. And they voted out a lot of Republicans, based on the overturn. But it was a lot of closing the barn door after the horses had all got out. Americans generally considered Roe settled law, even while access to abortion was becoming more and more difficult in many states. Sure, you can say that people voted in the legislators who made the laws so punitive, and caused so many clinics that provided many kinds of healthcare for women to be closed, basically because they included abortion services. Call it too laissez-faire, or whatever, but many people are not political, and, as I said, they didn't really believe Roe would be overturned, even as access to legal and safe abortion became increasingly rare in some states. It has been the activist few leading the apolitical majority. Now it's done. I fear that the fallout will be in women's lives, lacking for adequate healthcare. Free clinics are closed all around the country, just because part of what they did was provide abortion services. Doctors are afraid of what they can and cannot say to women at risk of miscarriages, for example, because of draconian laws that could send doctors to prison for saving the mother's life, when there is a "detectable heartbeat" on a non-viable fetus. Women are being told to sit in the parking lot until things get worse. Women will die. Perfectly functional couples that want babies also have to make choices about non-viable pregnancies. Ectopic ones, for example. Now there are laws that prevent doctors from helping them. Doctors know what they should do, but they're afraid of consequences, so they wait. They don't know what they can legally say. They send women to other states...if they can afford to go there.

My own feeling on the make up of SCOTUS in America is that neither wing should be allowed to hold a majority, because neither are trustworthy when it comes to politicising the job, and nor should appointments be for life.

Used to be, SC justices were meant to be above the politics, and to some extent that worked. Surely, there have been more "liberal" courts and more "conservative" courts. But since Bush v. Gore, the notion of an impartial court went to hell. And now we discover that they can take graft with no oversight. I absolutely agree they should no longer be lifetime appointments. It was meant to make them impartial. Instead, it just gives them too much power, and loads of grift.

 

[Federberg]

I'm just responding. You're the one who gets his knickers in a twist about my posts. You're so convinced by your position on transgender issues, but frankly I'd forgotten that. It's why I abdicated from the PC threads. You brought it back to this thread, rather out of left-field. But you do you. It kind of bums me out if you're going to spoil this thread, too, though. Opinions not welcome if they're not yours? I'm sorry that you don't like how I characterize your position, but that's how it seems to me, that's why we discuss, rather than just sneer.

I see you’re adopting full Gen Z. I’m actually quite amused., but also a little sad for you. Father Time is undefeated, so don’t even try.

You don’t get to determine what’s relevant. I know that’s what you progressives would love - Control what folks should think or say. Still a free world. Whether you like it or not SCOTUS made a decision about LGBTQ, last I recall the T is part of it. So this is appropriate for the US Politics thread. You might not want to explore the First Amendment implications of forced speech but some of the rest of us do.

Moderate your behaviour, you might think that calling someone’s writing ‘facile and reactionary’ is ok. Agree with my point or not that’s fine. Less of the editorialising. And don’t act like the entitled girl who slaps a dude then gets butt hurt when they get hit back

 

[Kieran]

There is a basic problem with how Roe was created, yes, which allowed states to dismantle it. As you say, the American population is largely in favor of the right to abortion. And they voted out a lot of Republicans, based on the overturn. But it was a lot of closing the barn door after the horses had all got out. Americans generally considered Roe settled law, even while access to abortion was becoming more and more difficult in many states. Sure, you can say that people voted in the legislators who made the laws so punitive, and caused so many clinics that provided many kinds of healthcare for women to be closed, basically because they included abortion services. Call it too laissez-faire, or whatever, but many people are not political, and, as I said, they didn't really believe Roe would be overturned, even as access to legal and safe abortion became increasingly rare in some states. It has been the activist few leading the apolitical majority. Now it's done. I fear that the fallout will be in women's lives, lacking for adequate healthcare. Free clinics are closed all around the country, just because part of what they did was provide abortion services. Doctors are afraid of what they can and cannot say to women at risk of miscarriages, for example, because of draconian laws that could send doctors to prison for saving the mother's life, when there is a "detectable heartbeat" on a non-viable fetus. Women are being told to sit in the parking lot until things get worse. Women will die. Perfectly functional couples that want babies also have to make choices about non-viable pregnancies. Ectopic ones, for example. Now there are laws that prevent doctors from helping them. Doctors know what they should do, but they're afraid of consequences, so they wait. They don't know what they can legally say. They send women to other states...if they can afford to go there.

Used to be, SC justices were meant to be above the politics, and to some extent that worked. Surely, there have been more "liberal" courts and more "conservative" courts. But since Bush v. Gore, the notion of an impartial court went to hell. And now we discover that they can take graft with no oversight. I absolutely agree they should no longer be lifetime appointments. It was meant to make them impartial. Instead, it just gives them too much power, and loads of grift.

Well now, I didn’t say that the majority of Americans are in favour of abortion! I don’t know the numbers on that, and I had hoped that Roe being overturned would open up a sensible talk over there about abortion, but like everything else, that seems unlikely.

I didn’t know that the Supreme Court was ever less partial, basically for the same reason that I don’t spend too much time on American politics. But your country has become more tribal and less reasonable about politics - on both wings - and so it doesn’t surprise me how it’s gotten. It was bound to happen, actually, given the power the Supreme Court has. That’ll probably be difficult to change?

 

[Kieran]

Good post. And here is where protecting religious freedom clashes with other established rights. Same-sex marriage is established law. Some religions don't recognize it, as is their right. Marriage is a contract with the State, and is recognized as such. However, if your church, mosque, temple won't marry you under their rules and beliefs, that's up to them. I think we all agree that the ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis is wrong-headed, given it was a theoretical, if nothing else. And it's an over-step, on the part of the court. And the over-reach, with this current court is inclined to protect the Christian religious POV. I mean, what if 303 Creative had been Jewish Orthodox, or Muslim, and objected, in a hypothetical, on religious grounds? Would the court have been so activist? Somehow, it's hard to think so.

And vice versa - other rights clash with religious freedom. Although I agree that 303 Creative was actually a battle for an established right that hasn’t actually been threatened - a preemptive strike, if it like - and was certainly something a wise judge might have said wasn’t yet appropriate for court, we often see and hear of cases such as the baker cases where bakers are asked to write something inappropriate to their faith on a cake, and refuse. My personal view on this is that I try to be nuanced and say, it’s their job to serve the customer and not discriminate based on religion or sexuality etc. But at the same time I wish we lived in societies where everybody didn’t clatter and bang on about their rights. It’s tiresome and antisocial. They’re like egomaniacal children, at times.

If you go to a baker or a website designer and they’re religiously devout and suggest another place for you go instead, why try force them? Why go so far that it ends up in court? This is a societal problem. Do I really think that if I go to a Muslim baker and insist he writes, Jesus Christ is God on a cake, that I’m doing anything other than trolling him, and upsetting him? And so wouldn’t I be kinder to just say, okay, thanks for the recommend, I’ll go there instead?

And though this probably commonly resolves itself easily, we get these jerks who have to push, and it goes to court. So it’s good then when courts assign boundaries and basically say, you must respect others religious freedoms and different views. There are a lot of other types of scenarios, including more important ones, but this principle should still apply…

 

[Kieran]

I'm just responding. You're the one who gets his knickers in a twist about my posts. You're so convinced by your position on transgender issues, but frankly I'd forgotten that. It's why I abdicated from the PC threads. You brought it back to this thread, rather out of left-field. But you do you. It kind of bums me out if you're going to spoil this thread, too, though. Opinions not welcome if they're not yours? I'm sorry that you don't like how I characterize your position, but that's how it seems to me, that's why we discuss, rather than just sneer.

To be fair, his position on trans is merely the sane one. The objective one. The feminist, pro-woman position. And the trans issue is an issue in American politics, a large one. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Jonathan Haidt, the great American psychologist who spent good time researching the changes that came over the American campuses around 2013-14? He’s quite excellent at highlighting trends and their causes, he’s written books about it, and about parenting and how this changed somewhat, and affected kids that were born around 1995. These kids arrived on campus around 2013-14 and were wholly inadequate in social settings, not necessarily their fault, but caused in huge part by the way they were reared, and the huge change in society as it became more connected.

He speaks and writes ably about the explosion of trans too. The social contagion aspect of it, but he’s not a man with an axe to grind, politically. He looks at everything from the position of his field, and goes through cause and effect. This long preamble isn’t to establish Jonathon Haidt’s credentials, which I’m sure you’re aware of, but to bring up something else he said, which was to the effect that the worst form of government is single party government, as we see in China, Russia, North Korea etc - and the second worst is two party government, which we obviously see in America.

The effect of this is that issues become tribal, there’s less collaboration and fairness, less openness to other ideas, or even fair discussion about opposing views, there’s a fossilisation of ideas where people in both tribes don’t question their own tribe - at all. You can see where this is going.

Recently Johns-Hopkins, one of the fabled institutes who were referred to when we said “Trust the Science” during covid, stated that ‘a lesbian is a non-man who’s attracted to other non-men.’

Marina Navratilova wasn’t alone in angrily denouncing this as further proof of ‘the erasure of women’. It’s also proof of why trans is an American political issue, when all your institutions and large commercial enterprises are cheerleading a lie - a lie that leads to the savage abuse of children…

 

[tented]

And vice versa - other rights clash with religious freedom. Although I agree that 303 Creative was actually a battle for an established right that hasn’t actually been threatened - a preemptive strike, if it like - and was certainly something a wise judge might have said wasn’t yet appropriate for court, we often see and hear of cases such as the baker cases where bakers are asked to write something inappropriate to their faith on a cake, and refuse. My personal view on this is that I try to be nuanced and say, it’s their job to serve the customer and not discriminate based on religion or sexuality etc. But at the same time I wish we lived in societies where everybody didn’t clatter and bang on about their rights. It’s tiresome and antisocial. They’re like egomaniacal children, at times.

If you go to a baker or a website designer and they’re religiously devout and suggest another place for you go instead, why try force them? Why go so far that it ends up in court? This is a societal problem. Do I really think that if I go to a Muslim baker and insist he writes, Jesus Christ is God on a cake, that I’m doing anything other than trolling him, and upsetting him? And so wouldn’t I be kinder to just say, okay, thanks for the recommend, I’ll go there instead?

And though this probably commonly resolves itself easily, we get these jerks who have to push, and it goes to court. So it’s good then when courts assign boundaries and basically say, you must respect others religious freedoms and different views. There are a lot of other types of scenarios, including more important ones, but this principle should still apply…

Or, if the job you’re applying for, the profession you’re seeking, or the business you’re opening would require you to do something which goes against your religious views, don’t do it. It’s like that woman who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples even though they were perfectly legal and she worked in a government office: why was she even in that job?

Should she have been allowed to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples if she had been a member of the KKK? Wouldn’t that have been allowing her to exercise her freedom of speech of her “different views”?

 

[Kieran]

Or, if the job you’re applying for, the profession you’re seeking, or the business you’re opening would require you to do something which goes against your religious views, don’t do it. It’s like that woman who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples even though they were perfectly legal and she worked in a government office: why was she even in that job?

Should she have been allowed to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples if she had been a member of the KKK? Wouldn’t that have been allowing her to exercise her freedom of speech of her “different views”?

Exactly. She agreed to do the job as part of her employment, then reneged? Then she’s in breach of her contract. But if you’re a shop owner? I think you’re the employer there and you’re entitled to say you won’t do certain jobs. We shouldn’t be so fractured that we forced people to do things that are against their principles. It would be wrong to ask a gay baker to write anything on a cake that’s homophobic, for instance. Or not even homophobic but something that’s pointedly being requested in order to embarrass them. I think people need to be kinder to each other and appreciate differences, not use them to drive even bigger wedges between us..

 

[Jelenafan]

Theoretically the Bill of Rights supersedes State’s rights and is suppose to protect basic individual freedoms such as 1s amendment freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc, specifically when local or state statues encroach on them.

As mentioned, SCOTUS has to balance conflicting “rights” at times and the tricky line between a private & public service.

What I find interesting is the “Trans” issue that is redmeat baiting is bleeding over into “gays” issue as the Colorado web designer was about (theoretically) a same sex couple.

Under the LGBTQ unbrella, do conservatives really nuance between say Trans rights versus Gay rights? IMO some on the left have a hard time parsing so I’m guessing the right have the same issue.

Just as some feminists have distanced themselves from what they feel are excessive pandering to Trans identity, will Gay advocates do the same thing regarding Trans identity, as some have said, the agendas are not identical and in some ways Trans identify more as Straight.

 

[Federberg]

Exactly. She agreed to do the job as part of her employment, then reneged? Then she’s in breach of her contract. But if you’re a shop owner? I think you’re the employer there and you’re entitled to say you won’t do certain jobs. We shouldn’t be so fractured that we forced people to do things that are against their principles. It would be wrong to ask a gay baker to write anything on a cake that’s homophobic, for instance. Or not even homophobic but something that’s pointedly being requested in order to embarrass them. I think people need to be kinder to each other and appreciate differences, not use them to drive even bigger wedges between us..

Very well articulated nuances in the discussion. You rightly point out that working for a government institution encumbers the worker with obligations which are part of the expectation of service. If you run your own business then you get to determine what service you sell.

For the moronic progressives who fail to understand the subtleties, here's another...

There’s a difference between enforcing things people can’t say (like the N-word) and enforcing things that people HAVE to say (like forcing others to use made up pronouns). The latter is anti-free speech.

This is precisely why I suspect there might be some application with this SCOTUS ruling. I think this was probably obvious to most. Just clarifying for low IQ folk who might think the observation was ‘facile and reactionary’

 

[tented]

There’s a difference between enforcing things people can’t say (like the N-word) and enforcing things that people HAVE to say (like forcing others to use made up pronouns). The latter is anti-free speech.

But it’s really that people shouldn’t say the N-word, not that they can’t.

 

[Federberg]

But it’s really that people shouldn’t say the N-word, not that they can’t.

very true. The logic applies. In this new world we are told we should affirm gender identities, we're not quite at the point where we can't. Unless you're telling me that there are sanctions in the US now that are worse if you fail to affirm gender than using the N-word?

 

[tented]

very true. The logic applies. In this new world we are told we should affirm gender identities, we're not quite at the point where we can't. Unless you're telling me that there are sanctions in the US now that are worse if you fail to affirm gender than using the N-word?

Not yet, but who knows? Even though it’s legal, no one is going to get anywhere using the N-word. Just ask Michael Richards.

 

[Federberg]

Not yet, but who knows? Even though it’s legal, no one is going to get anywhere using the N-word. Just ask Michael Richards.

Sigh.. Kramer Kramer Kramer... his career has never been the same

But you see my point right? Society ostracises those who do what he did. Our dear trans-activists are trying to create a world where we would HAVE to use their pronouns. Presumably if we don't they would have us socially terminated. Now it's possible that government institutions might try enforce these pronouns in the near future. Just look at the steps California's legislature is taking that takes us closer to that scenario? Well.. now after this SCOTUS ruling. It's not too far fetched to imagine someone using First Amendment rights to oppose State enforcement of such a hypothetical law... That was my point. Just thinking ahead...