Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
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?
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?
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.
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.
https://x.com/elhotzo/status/1812282958067253257
this PoS brought you by the german forced tax money.
this PoS brought you by the german forced tax money.
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.
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.
