Controversial General Political Discussion

[Bisoromi Bear]

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?

 

[Natalija]

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.

 

[Indigo]

Why are you so defensive? Did you feel personally attacked by my statement?

how is this defensive?

 

[Germinator]

No, how it works

If you know how it works, you know something true about it

You're trying to say knowledge can be had without truth


Holy shit who deprived this kid of milk or formula growing up

 

[Indigo]

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

 

[Germinator]

I said in the sence that those are abstact concept. There are not existing in the material world. But those are still relevant notions.

Why are they relevant? Lol

Everythings just matter, atoms interacting with atoms right?

 

[Ravagerblade]

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

 

[Natalija]

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.

 

[Natalija]

I don't *like* the law, but if you have a constitution you either need to follow it or amend it.

 

[Indigo]

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?

 

[Saturn-sama]

https://x.com/elhotzo/status/1812282958067253257

this PoS brought you by the german forced tax money.

 

[Natalija]

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.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Law IS semantics.

That's what law is.

Interpretation of a religious scripture that dead people wrote.

 

[Natalija]

That's what law is.

Interpretation of a religious scripture that dead people wrote.

Yeah, that's part of the problem, trying to interpret an Amendment which was written like 160 years ago and realistically isn't adapted for 2024.

This is part of the reason they will never have gun control

 

[Indigo]

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?

 

[Natalija]

so you're not even from the US?

of course not, you can tell by my bad English

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

so you're not even from the US?

What's with you asking everyone if they're from the US? It's like you're new to the forum

 

[K!NG HARA$H!MA]

Pray for Idolo

 

[Saturn-sama]

https://x.com/Bowtiedplayer/status/1812315653006614615

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Yeah, that's part of the problem, trying to interpret an Amendment which was written like 160 years ago and realistically isn't adapted for 2024.

This is part of the reason they will never have gun control

That's why I prefer oral transmission of history and everything else where laws evolve organically according to gradual changes in culture and values. It also eliminates the danger that comes from literal interpretations of 2000 year old religious texts (which gave us salafism etc) and rewriting & additional text that was not part of the original scripture for political agenda.