Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sebastian, I am going to suggest that now is not the right time start with your weak ass “inaccurate prognosticator” bullshit, or whatever moronic explanation you incorrectly think will be a good idea now. Silent shame is your best course of action right now, although I know you will not be able to resist posting something stupid.

Even Bret Stephens at NYTimes is saying this was a radical decision.

Yeah, you're right. I figured sane people would stay sane. There was a time when moderate Republicans saw to it that things like Roe - imperfect but useful compromises that kept issues where people held irreconcilable differences from becoming tails that wagged all of our politics and policy - stayed in place.

Even people who didn't personally condone abortion realized Roe kept the peace.

So yeah, I'm a fuckhead for thinking the old men in the smoky rooms who gave us people like Souter and O'Connor and the Rs on the Court who were responsible for Roe still held sway.

But I'm not giving up on thinking that some crowd of elites, bipartisan ideally, will emerge in DC and take the wheel. I'm not giving up that hope because Most People Want Compromise. Minority rule of this sort is simply unsustainable. Adults have to prevail.

Or we're just fucked.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Even Bret Stephens at NYTimes is saying this was a radical decision.

Yeah, you're right. I figured sane people would stay sane. There was a time when moderate Republicans saw to it that things like Roe - imperfect but useful compromises that kept issues where people held irreconcilable differences from becoming tails that wagged all of our politics and policy - stayed in place.

Even people who didn't personally condone abortion realized Roe kept the peace.

So yeah, I'm a fuckhead for thinking the old men in the smoky rooms who gave us people like Souter and O'Connor and the Rs on the Court who were responsible for Roe still held sway.

But I'm not giving up on thinking that some crowd of elites, bipartisan ideally, will emerge in DC and take the wheel. I'm not giving up that hope because Most People Want Compromise. Minority rule of this sort is simply unsustainable. Adults have to prevail.

Or we're just fucked.

I love the sunrise over Marblehead.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Even Bret Stephens at NYTimes is saying this was a radical decision.

Yeah, you're right. I figured sane people would stay sane. There was a time when moderate Republicans saw to it that things like Roe - imperfect but useful compromises that kept issues where people held irreconcilable differences from becoming tails that wagged all of our politics and policy - stayed in place.

Even people who didn't personally condone abortion realized Roe kept the peace.

So yeah, I'm a fuckhead for thinking the old men in the smoky rooms who gave us people like Souter and O'Connor and the Rs on the Court who were responsible for Roe still held sway.

But I'm not giving up on thinking that some crowd of elites, bipartisan ideally, will emerge in DC and take the wheel. I'm not giving up that hope because Most People Want Compromise. Minority rule of this sort is simply unsustainable. Adults have to prevail.

Or we're just fucked.

The problem is that thus far, the GOP has suffered no consequences for its extremism. Nobody treats them as extreme and they only gain votes. Until it starts costing them something, they will keep going.

Meanwhile, the Dems are still afraid of the ghost of George McGovern.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The problem is that thus far, the GOP has suffered no consequences for its extremism. Nobody treats them as extreme and they only gain votes. Until it starts costing them something, they will keep going.

Note the passive tense here. Too many Democrats keep waiting for this to happen of its own accord, as if these consequences are just going to happen as a force of nature, like farmers lamenting a drought. It's politics. Democrats need to figure out how to make it happen. Every election is a choice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The problem is that thus far, the GOP has suffered no consequences for its extremism. Nobody treats them as extreme and they only gain votes. Until it starts costing them something, they will keep going.

Meanwhile, the Dems are still afraid of the ghost of George McGovern.

I hate to cite Bret Stephens, but this is excellent:

"[A] decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.

This is partly a matter of stare decisis, but not just that. As conservatives, you are philosophically bound to give considerable weight to judicial precedents, particularly when they have been ratified and refined — as Roe was by the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — over a long period. The fact that Casey somewhat altered the original scheme of Roe, a point Justice Alito makes much of in his draft opinion, doesn’t change the fact that the court broadly upheld the right to an abortion. “Casey is precedent on precedent,” as Justice Kavanaugh aptly put it in his confirmation hearing.

It’s also a matter of originalism. “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “it is indispensable that they” — the judges — “should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.” Hamilton understood then what many of today’s originalists ignore, which is that the core purpose of the courts isn’t to engage in (unavoidably selective) textual exegetics to arrive at preferred conclusions. It’s to avoid an arbitrary discretion — to resist the temptation to seek to reshape the entire moral landscape of a vast society based on the preferences of two or three people at a single moment.

. . .
Americans are almost evenly divided on their personal views of abortion, according to years of Gallup polling, but only 19 percent think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.

It shouldn’t be hard to imagine how Americans will react to the court conspicuously providing aid and comfort to the 19 percent. You may reason, justices, that by joining Justice Alito’s opinion, you will merely be changing the terms on which abortion issues get decided in the United States. In reality, you will be lighting another cultural fire — one that took decades to get under control — in a country already ablaze over racial issues, school curriculums, criminal justice, election laws, sundry conspiracy theories and so on.
. . .

[T]he decision will also discredit the court as a steward of whatever is left of American steadiness and sanity, and as a bulwark against our fast-depleting respect for institutions and tradition. The fact that the draft of Justice Alito’s decision was leaked — which Chief Justice Roberts rightly described as an “egregious breach” of trust — is a foretaste of the kind of guerrilla warfare the court should expect going forward. And not just on abortion: A court that betrays the trust of Americans on an issue that affects so many, so personally, will lose their trust on every other issue as well."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/o...servative.html