We are all Slave now.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You know that is not true of course. I need only mention Gabby Giffords.

Jared Loughner was a paranoid schizophrenic who was a registered Independent. Not a volunteer for an actual candidate or anything.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

maybe you missed it, but I have a question- you seem to think Trump getting to replace a justice is a good thing? Are you hoping roe is toast? I only ask because I think that makes you unique here- not looking to pick a fight, just fill in my scorecard.

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

ETA: I don't think there's even a small chance of that happening unless both RBG and Breyer leave the court within the next year.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

ETA: I don't think there's even a small chance of that happening unless both RBG and Breyer leave the court within the next year.

Left to the states. So you think the various federal restrictions should be rolled back?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

If I had jumped to the conclusion that the shooting was politically motivated, I think I would feel a bit silly about not waiting for the facts. But only Republicans get shot up at a baseball field or have decapitated animal carcasses left at their front door. So I'm sure it's fine.

You're a jackass.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Jared Loughner was a paranoid schizophrenic who was a registered Independent. Not a volunteer for an actual candidate or anything.

I'm going to resist posting all the articles and other stuff disproving what I hope is a troll and not a serious post.

Loughner was inspired by the conservative media spawned by the Tea Party movement. He posted rants with Tea Party themes. He's a really good example in this case.

It's kind of mind-blowing that you're poo-pooing this danger.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

Explain this, because it makes no fucking sense. Either it should be overturned and abortions should be completely against the law or not. Why should which state you live in determine whether or not you have access to an abortion? I know this is the conservative mantra, but it makes zero sense. I thought it was just your way of chipping away at the federal law.

And what is it about states that makes that the appropriate line at which to apply the law? Different counties within the state surely have differing values. What about at the township level? District? Neighborhood? House? Individu...ah. Yes. Right. That's just choice.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Jared Loughner was a paranoid schizophrenic who was a registered Independent. Not a volunteer for an actual candidate or anything.

the guy in Maryland was associated with some candidate? a dem? but the paper was left leaning, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

ETA: I don't think there's even a small chance of that happening unless both RBG and Breyer leave the court within the next year.

thank you for the answer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yes. I do think that Roe should be overturned and that the issue should be left to the states.

The thing this situation has me thinking about is why stop there? Why isn't the anti-choice movement going to push for constitutional recognition of a fetal right to life?

And maybe your ETA answers it, in that you don't think it will be viable because stare decisis is too strong.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

...stare decisis is too strong.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the guy in Maryland was associated with some candidate? a dem? but the paper was left leaning, right?

It was just a local paper. They reported a story about him years ago about him harassing women, and he filed and lost a defamation case. It was not in any way politically motivated.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Explain this, because it makes no fucking sense. Either it should be overturned and abortions should be completely against the law or not. Why should which state you live in determine whether or not you have access to an abortion? I know this is the conservative mantra, but it makes zero sense. I thought it was just your way of chipping away at the federal law.

And what is it about states that makes that the appropriate line at which to apply the law? Different counties within the state surely have differing values. What about at the township level? District? Neighborhood? House? Individu...ah. Yes. Right. That's just choice.

TM

Or perhaps some people believe seriously that our federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution and think that the 10th Amendment actually means something. And that the states are supposed to have different laws and that in doing so, states can find the best ways to meet their individual needs or have the freedom to discover a better way to do something. And that state-level politicians are more receptive to their constituents.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

...states can find the best ways to meet their individual needs or have the freedom to discover a better way to do something

This is the part that I don't get. Why is it states that have the best ways to discover a better way? The implication is that one size does not fit all. New York surely knows what's better for it's communities than a group sitting in DC. But why does a group sitting in Albany know what's better for the West Village or the Finger Lakes, for that matter? It seems like a totally arbitrary cutoff.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the part that I don't get. Why is it states that have the best ways to discover a better way? The implication is that one size does not fit all. New York surely knows what's better for it's communities than a group sitting in DC. But why does a group sitting in Albany know what's better for the West Village or the Finger Lakes, for that matter? It seems like a totally arbitrary cutoff.

TM

I agree that local governments are even closer to their voters, but our country was based on an agreement among the States. States can push that stuff down as much as they want, the whole point is that there is no one size fits all. Oklahoma is probably uniform enough that things can be managed at the state level, whereas in NY or CA or other diverse states, it might be better to push some of that down (except for the fact that NY and CA are the kind of states that want to control everyone and everything anyway, so maybe a state like say, Florida would be a better example).

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the part that I don't get. Why is it states that have the best ways to discover a better way? The implication is that one size does not fit all. New York surely knows what's better for it's communities than a group sitting in DC. But why does a group sitting in Albany know what's better for the West Village or the Finger Lakes, for that matter? It seems like a totally arbitrary cutoff.

TM

Great point. The short answer is because that’s the way our nation was set up - 13 distinct and separate colonies, jealous of each other, were combined into one country (not very well under the Articles of Confederation, but Not Bad under the Constitution). And the colonies were all governed, more or less, from a central location by either a royal governor and/or some collective body. And here we are.

I think the theory is that cities, towns, and counties are created under the state’s authority. They can be dissolved by the state (subject to a state’s own constitution).

This is ok in theory because each part of New York sends representatives to Albany to make decisions. So all parts of the state can collectively decide in a post-Roe* world whether one can get an abortion in the Villiage or Buffalo. (One can see this sort of thing in action on something like the MTA - deBlasio gets the blame for crowded subways but it’s NYS government that ultimately decides how much funding to give for maintenance and modernization).

*Roe took the legality of abortions away from the individual states. If it’s reversed, unless the reversal says “life begins at conception,” it will go back to being a state issue.

ETA: TL;dr - what SEC said.