we're human beings

limited

we can only think about and react to what we see

of course the Ukraine x Russia and the Israel x Hamas conflicts that are being shown more, will get more of a reaction

how can you expect people to feel or react about things they can't see?

do you also expect everyone to dedicate their lives on researching everything bad that is happening right now? when we don't even have the time to just work enough for a living and rest?
You would be 24/7 deeply depressed if you think about everything.
 
we're human beings

limited

we can only think about and react to what we see

of course the Ukraine x Russia and the Israel x Hamas conflicts that are being shown more, will get more of a reaction

how can you expect people to feel or react about things they can't see?

do you also expect everyone to dedicate their lives on researching everything bad that is happening right now? when we don't even have the time to just work enough for a living and rest?
Why are you so defensive? Did you feel personally attacked by my statement?
 
so do you agree that any Conservative President right now would have more power?

or at least, they will feel a lot less scared to act on whatever they want
Are you asking me if I think the Supreme Court decides based on party allegiance?

No, I think they uphold the law, too high of a court to not be judging fairly. They need a majority to decide anything, and the majority needs to write depositions as to why they want to judge in xyz direction. The minority that disagreed initially usually agrees after the depositions, and make it a unanimous decision.

In this instance, they are not wrong at all once you read the constitution.

There's a lot of holes in the justice system, but the 9 person Supreme Court is not the issue.
 
Are you asking me if I think the Supreme Court decides based on party allegiance?

No, I think they uphold the law, too high of a court to not be judging fairly. They need a majority to decide anything, and the majority needs to write depositions as to why they want to judge in xyz direction. The minority that disagreed initially usually agrees after the depositions, and make it a unanimous decision.

In this instance, they are not wrong at all once you read the constitution.

There's a lot of holes in the justice system, but the 9 person Supreme Court is not the issue.
of course you think it's fair

based on your recent posts

you seem to agree with their decisions

i could be completely be wrong

but your posts feel more right leaning and you're against abortion if remember correctly?

so of course you have no problem with these decisions
 
of course you think it's fair

based on your recent posts

you seem to agree with their decisions

i could be completely be wrong

but your posts feel more right leaning and you're against abortion if remember correctly?

so of course you have no problem with these decisions
No, I am pro abortion.

But READING and JUDGING based on the law is a special beast.
 
did you agree with their decison on Roe v Wade then?
It got overturned on constitutional semantics, since in Roe it was judged as a right to privacy. The issue becomes a problem in the "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" line of the 14th Amendment. There they concluded Roe v Wade was a wrong unconstitutional ruling, from the "life" angle (I'm simplifying but ya I like to read law).

I think the best option here is to add an Amendment which clearly defines abortion rights etc. That is how it is in my country, it's the ridiculous precedent stuff they have which makes things like these complicated for no reason.

Law IS semantics. Call it a reasonable ruling that undid a good decision (right for abortion) made in a wrong approach (Roe v Wade), since now it depends on the states and their level of conservatism.
 
It got overturned on constitutional semantics, since in Roe it was judged as a right to privacy. The issue becomes a problem in the "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" line of the 14th Amendment. There they concluded Roe v Wade was a wrong unconstitutional ruling, from the "life" angle (I'm simplifying but ya I like to read law).

I think the best option here is to add an Amendment which clearly defines abortion rights etc. That is how it is in my country, it's the ridiculous precedent stuff they have which makes things like these complicated for no reason.

Law IS semantics. Call it a reasonable ruling that undid a good decision (right for abortion) made in a wrong approach (Roe v Wade), since now it depends on the states and their level of conservatism.
so you're not even from the US?
 
Top