SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[cubby]

He still hasn't told me why states, given their wildly different geographical locations, cultures, vastly different landmasses, and astronomically different populations, are the "perfect size" for enforcing morals on their constituents while the federal government is too large and county/city governments are too small.

I fear we'll never hear back on that one : (

He's probably searching for more talking points to believe, and then post.

I have to say, that uncited quote, if it's from where I think it's from, is very scary. The points brought up are dangerously inaccurate yet very persuasive to the uneducated reader (or even worse the willfully ignorant reader).

The Electoral College is horrifically outdated and literally "unfair", and yet will never be removed (now that SCOTUS is 6-3 GQP), because the GQP can't win without it.

[Endus]

He still hasn't told me why states, given their wildly different geographical locations, cultures, vastly different landmasses, and astronomically different populations, are the "perfect size" for enforcing morals on their constituents while the federal government is too large and county/city governments are too small.

I fear we'll never hear back on that one : (

Usually ends up boiling down to "it's what the Founding Fathers established and they were supernaturally wise and gifted with perfect knowledge direct from the Christian God Himself" or some such thing.

As if those Founding Fathers weren't mostly brutal slavers and rapists who made sure to write the institution of slavery into the Constitution before any of the Bill of Rights were even considered for later inclusion; their "rights" to beat and rape their slaves was more important to them than the right to free speech or any of the others listed in the Bill of Rights.

You can't visit someplace like Jefferson's Monticello estate and walk away thinking Jefferson was a good dude, not after touring the slave quarters underneath the house proper. It's like trying to handwave the death camp a Nazi ran and argue "but he had some good political ideas, honest!"

[Poopymonster]

Usually ends up boiling down to "it's what the Founding Fathers established and they were supernaturally wise and gifted with perfect knowledge direct from the Christian God Himself" or some such thing.

As if those Founding Fathers weren't mostly brutal slavers and rapists who made sure to write the institution of slavery into the Constitution before any of the Bill of Rights were even considered for later inclusion; their "rights" to beat and rape their slaves was more important to them than the right to free speech or any of the others listed in the Bill of Rights.

You can't visit someplace like Jefferson's Monticello estate and walk away thinking Jefferson was a good dude, not after touring the slave quarters underneath the house proper. It's like trying to handwave the death camp a Nazi ran and argue "but he had some good political ideas, honest!"

At least the trains ran on time.

[PenguinChan]

Usually ends up boiling down to "it's what the Founding Fathers established and they were supernaturally wise and gifted with perfect knowledge direct from the Christian God Himself" or some such thing.

As if those Founding Fathers weren't mostly brutal slavers and rapists who made sure to write the institution of slavery into the Constitution before any of the Bill of Rights were even considered for later inclusion; their "rights" to beat and rape their slaves was more important to them than the right to free speech or any of the others listed in the Bill of Rights.

You can't visit someplace like Jefferson's Monticello estate and walk away thinking Jefferson was a good dude, not after touring the slave quarters underneath the house proper. It's like trying to handwave the death camp a Nazi ran and argue "but he had some good political ideas, honest!"

Wait, did our founding fathers really do that? I know all about the civil war and such, signing the papers and everything. But I never heard that all of them were very much on the side of slavery and trying ruthlessly to keep it in there. I was under the impression not all of them liked slavery.

[PenguinChan]

Mostly would be the key word here. If you don’t know that abolitionists were in the minority you need to read up some.

Apparently I do. Never was taught in school that it was the minority - they did not imply it was a majority for slavery either. May have been mentioned but never a talking point, that’s for sure. It was always the civil war where that conversation took place or talked about.

[Endus]

Wait, did our founding fathers really do that? I know all about the civil war and such, signing the papers and everything. But I never heard that all of them were very much on the side of slavery and trying ruthlessly to keep it in there. I was under the impression not all of them liked slavery.

Not literally every one, but the vast majority were slaveowners. The few who weren't took airs to vent about how poor slavery made the whites look, but none of them really had any real concerns about it.

A lot of people like to call Jefferson an "abolitionist", because he made some such comments in letters, but they only do so by hand-waving the fact that he owned a whole lot of slaves and raped the hell out of at least one and likely a bunch more, over and above the regular brutal beating and mistreatments. And he didn't emancipate any of them, not even his own children by the one slave we knew he raped repeatedly (this being how we know), not even on his deathbed.

The Constitution explicitly contained text that described how slavery was to be respected and fleeing slaves were to be returned to their owners, and it was never directly expunged, just rendered unenforceable after the 13th Amendment so it's generally stricken from modern versions. The Fugitive Slave Clause is the most infamous of these, but not the only time slavery is referenced in the original text; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

Even the debates that resulted in the 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with the indignities and abuses of slavery, and for both sides, was just about how to secure the most power for their group of States; the slave states wanted slaves to count for Congressional representation (and in no other way be treated as human), because that would mean they got more members in Congress by their population, and the North opposed that because slaves weren't people and allowing that gave the Southern States more Congressional power. That's what the 3/5 Compromise was about; Congressional seating and political power, not any stance on slavery any supposed rights held by black people.

[Glorious Leader]

You end up with that double speak that Pinocchio did on Shrek to avoid getting the straight answer.

Remember, the GOP blocked a bill requiring a standard of ethics among the judges for a reason.

Edit: Implementing term limits, standards of ethics and making it where they couldn’t be packed like this would go a long way though.

Like make it where the Supreme Court isn’t appointed to directly but instead are rotated out every few months from appointments from the lower courts where no rotation can see any cases brought up while they are in session and any cases that drag on will be finished by the judges that take it. Once the process of selecting new judges even starts, they will not see any cases brought to it after that.

If an emergency case is brought up that needs immediate attention, a new special court is brought up to address it.

And make no judges be lifetime and last for now more than 10 years with 1 re-nomination. And the nominations are brought up by the senators who represent that state and the both must agree on.

But as it stands, the current court has zero credibility and I do not respect them or any judgment they make and would gladly support any state the pass legislation to refuse enforcement of their rules until their credibility is addressed.

Why respect a court when a super majority of those in the court don’t even respect it and instead were willing to lie, cheat and steal to get there just to desecrate and weaponize it?

Buddy even souter called it the day the music died. When they decided Bush v gore and it was nakedly partisan. The court hasn't had respect in a long time.

[PenguinChan]

Not literally every one, but the vast majority were slaveowners. The few who weren't took airs to vent about how poor slavery made the whites look, but none of them really had any real concerns about it.

A lot of people like to call Jefferson an "abolitionist", because he made some such comments in letters, but they only do so by hand-waving the fact that he owned a whole lot of slaves and raped the hell out of at least one and likely a bunch more, over and above the regular brutal beating and mistreatments. And he didn't emancipate any of them, not even his own children by the one slave we knew he raped repeatedly (this being how we know), not even on his deathbed.

The Constitution explicitly contained text that described how slavery was to be respected and fleeing slaves were to be returned to their owners, and it was never directly expunged, just rendered unenforceable after the 13th Amendment so it's generally stricken from modern versions. The Fugitive Slave Clause is the most infamous of these, but not the only time slavery is referenced in the original text; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

Even the debates that resulted in the 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with the indignities and abuses of slavery, and for both sides, was just about how to secure the most power for their group of States; the slave states wanted slaves to count for Congressional representation (and in no other way be treated as human), because that would mean they got more members in Congress by their population, and the North opposed that because slaves weren't people and allowing that gave the Southern States more Congressional power. That's what the 3/5 Compromise was about; Congressional seating and political power, not any stance on slavery any supposed rights held by black people.

I wonder if any of them were actually not horrible to their slaves.

Anyways.

Some of this I knew, or a huge chunk of it, just not in the way it's presented here. So the slave clause is still technically there, just unwritten today? That's kind of strange. I did, however, know that it was about power and who would retain it, not at all in consideration of the slaves. But resurfacing that fact is kind of chilling to read, lol. Neither side actually cared in the slightest, they just wanted power.

One side would pretend they're people for power, the other side would continue to say they aren't people, ergo, not for power. I've always been taught and, implied heavily at least, that the northern states were more anti-slavery than south's pro-slavery. Didn't really learn too deeply HOW they viewed anti-slavery and what it actually meant. TIL.

[uuuhname]

To that point, land already gets an overweighted vote in the Senate.

The whole, "City people aren't real people and don't count." line of argument is really, really, really, really, really, really, really weird to me.

can we please stop pretending it's anything but naked racism? we really need to get over this habit of giving right wingers the benefit of the doubt. even @tehdangus can't keep up his façade up all the time, and puts on that white hood every now and again. he keeps doing it because he assumes the people he's talking to are too dumb to read between the lines.

[LilSaihah]

can we please stop pretending it's anything but naked racism? we really need to get over this habit of giving right wingers the benefit of the doubt. even @tehdangus can't keep up his façade up all the time, and puts on that white hood every now and again. he keeps doing it because he assumes the people he's talking to are too dumb to read between the lines.

I don't see how it's racist; people of all races are entirely free to move out to less-populated states to increase their personal voting power.

[Draco-Onis]

I don't see how it's racist; people of all races are entirely free to move out to less-populated states to increase their personal voting power.

It takes a lot of resources to move to another state something poor people particularly people of color often lack. It's a way to not address deep systematic issues like the new abortion laws most people aren't going to be able to travel to other states to have one.

[Muzjhath]

Not literally every one, but the vast majority were slaveowners. The few who weren't took airs to vent about how poor slavery made the whites look, but none of them really had any real concerns about it.

A lot of people like to call Jefferson an "abolitionist", because he made some such comments in letters, but they only do so by hand-waving the fact that he owned a whole lot of slaves and raped the hell out of at least one and likely a bunch more, over and above the regular brutal beating and mistreatments. And he didn't emancipate any of them, not even his own children by the one slave we knew he raped repeatedly (this being how we know), not even on his deathbed.

The Constitution explicitly contained text that described how slavery was to be respected and fleeing slaves were to be returned to their owners, and it was never directly expunged, just rendered unenforceable after the 13th Amendment so it's generally stricken from modern versions. The Fugitive Slave Clause is the most infamous of these, but not the only time slavery is referenced in the original text; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

Even the debates that resulted in the 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with the indignities and abuses of slavery, and for both sides, was just about how to secure the most power for their group of States; the slave states wanted slaves to count for Congressional representation (and in no other way be treated as human), because that would mean they got more members in Congress by their population, and the North opposed that because slaves weren't people and allowing that gave the Southern States more Congressional power. That's what the 3/5 Compromise was about; Congressional seating and political power, not any stance on slavery any supposed rights held by black people.

On Jefferson as a slaver
There is quite a lot of literature and research on how Virginia slave-owners wanted to ban importation of new slaves (even before the revolution) so they could make more money controlling the supply of slaves to others.

[Poopymonster]

On Jefferson as a slaver
There is quite a lot of literature and research on how Virginia slave-owners wanted to ban importation of new slaves (even before the revolution) so they could make more money controlling the supply of slaves to others.

This also encouraged them to rape their slaves. More fun to make your own slaves rather than to pay for them.

[tehdang]

Actually, we did. The issue now is a minority (GQP) ruling a majority (Dem & Moderate) because of voter suppression (documented in quotes from GQP leaders saying the only way to win is to prevent voter turnout).

Yes, we'll firmly disagree on how to characterize your failure to achieve power. I am aware that this is how you see things.

Land shouldn't have voting rights. That's all the EC enshrines.

Committed to not being able to win through the method used to select presidents for the last two hundred years, progressives turn to bemoaning the fact that dense metros can't decide things for the rest of the country.

Link for that cite?

I have rephrased your actual post in terms that reflect my interpretation of your thinking and its true effects. I've seen enough piss-poor attempts to explain what the other side thinks and why, that y'all need an actual opponent's perspective.

Agreed. And the worst part is that people like @tehdang have been indoctrinated to believe that land should have voting rights, and the "DC political centers" (i.e. places where people live) are the enemy. They not only believe they are right, they have no useable tools in which to question what they are told to believe.

And people like cubby "have been indoctrinated to believe" that it's a United Metros of America, and anything else comprises an argument that "land should have voting rights." Something is inherently hard to grasp about the diverse interests of Americans in small states and rural areas, not to mention suburbs and exurbs, having value to be reflected not just in proportion to their mere population.

Not to say I'm overly piqued by such indoctrination. We have a system of power sharing that is well established and defrays the calls for centralization, however imperfectly enforced. Each fit of "land shouldn't vote" or "your voting laws are voter suppression" and "the Supreme Court doesn't legislate my policies anymore" is a reflection of denied power to people least deserving to wield it. A good system gives its losers the ability to bemoan whatever they believe stands in the way of their will.

[Endus]

And people like cubby "have been indoctrinated to believe" that it's a United Metros of America

A whopping 14% of Americans live rurally. Thinking there should be parity between rural and urban interests is discriminatory and prejudicial, definitively.

The majority of people living in states that get better per-capita representation in the EC are still urbanites.

and anything else comprises an argument that "land should have voting rights." Something is inherently hard to grasp about the diverse interests of Americans in small states and rural areas, not to mention suburbs and exurbs, having value to be reflected not just in proportion to their mere population.

See, what you're claiming here is that those people have more inherent value than people who live in urban centers.

That's the prejudice and discrimination talking. It's just empty bigotry.

We have a system of power sharing that is well established and defrays the calls for centralization, however imperfectly enforced.

That system of power sharing was designed to protect the interests of slave states and the institution of slavery, and has not meaningfully been updated or changed in any respect since that era. Thinking it's about rural v. urban divides is just wildly wrong, objectively.

Each fit of "land shouldn't vote" or "your voting laws are voter suppression" and "the Supreme Court doesn't legislate my policies anymore" is a reflection of denied power to people least deserving to wield it. A good system gives its losers the ability to bemoan whatever they believe stands in the way of their will.

Man, do you betray a hell of a lot about the undercurrents of your own issues with the subjects you chose to shoehorn in, here.

[Twdft]

Committed to not being able to win through the method used to select presidents for the last two hundred years, progressives turn to bemoaning the fact that dense metros can't decide things for the rest of the country.

Do you believe that the vote of a person living in rural America should be worth exactly the same as the vote of a person living in a dense metro?

This is a yes or no question btw.

[s_bushido]

dense metros can't decide things for the rest of the country.

When there are more people in those "dense metros" than there are in the "rest of the country" they do get to decide things. That's how representative democracies work. You know...representing the will of the people. But then again, it would probably help if you actually saw them as people in the first place, but I know that's asking a lot of a conservative.

You can keep spinning yourself in circles justifying why you think certain groups deserve more weight to their opinions, but none but the similarly deluded are convinced by that bullshit. Sorry.

[david0925]

I don't quite understand what is the point of continuously quoting and engaging with tehdang's disingenuous points. It's not like he's actually interested in properly debating each point and often just resort to disregarding confrontation, or deflection.

Is it just to call out his BS so others don't get misguided?

[Endus]

I don't quite understand what is the point of continuously quoting and engaging with tehdang's disingenuous points. It's not like he's actually interested in properly debating each point and often just resort to disregarding confrontation, or deflection.

Is it just to call out his BS so others don't get misguided?

Pretty much.

You generally can't convince people they're wrong in this kind of format, especially not if they have an ideological grounding for it. What you CAN do is underscore how meritless their position is to everyone else.

[Rozz]

Do you believe that the vote of a person living in rural America should be worth exactly the same as the vote of a person living in a dense metro?

This is a yes or no question btw.

No, people who say this believe in the 3/5ths compromise but instead of slaves, it's urban residents. Not that they or their representatives see a difference.