I'm pro choice, and this ticked me off

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10

According to Kyle Kulinski:
Corruption that benefits the right (repealing Roe V Wade): Bad.
Corruption that benefits the left (re enacting it): Good.

If the left wins on every issue, then what would our politicians disagree on?  It would be one party rule at that point.

Doesn't seem too good for diversity of thought.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
There are only two main ways to have a country:

1. Where people disagree

2. Where no one disagrees

USA, Sweden, Japan... have a lot of 1.

Russia, and especially North Korea are much closer to 2.

Its hard to say which one of those two is better for the country, but countries like Sweden, Japan and Switzerland are definitely better than Russia by far.
#3
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Corruption that benefits the right (repealing Roe V Wade): Bad.
Corruption that benefits the left (re enacting it): Good.
you're not really making any sense. Roe v. Wade has been established case law for decades. It was upheld over and over and over. So the supreme court repealing it was corruption. They set aside decades of case law. 

How would putting it back be corruption? It has decades of case law supporting it and it is overwhelmingly popular. So your base premise doesn't make sense. 
#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
They set aside decades of case law. 
and finally stated the obvious: The constitution does not imply anything about abortion.
#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and finally stated the obvious: The constitution does not imply anything about abortion.
It does say "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The courts determined that abortion bans illegally deprived people of these rights. This ruling was upheld by the courts for decades, IE giving this ruling decades of case law to support it.
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
It does say "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Due process of law means you pass a law, then you put them on trial, then you throw them in jail.

If the entire left-tribe (or you personally) were interested in reinterpreting that bill as a right to liberty notwithstanding the action of legislatures sign me up. I dream of liberty, and taxes are the first thing on the list.
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Due process of law means you pass a law, then you put them on trial, then you throw them in jail.
so by your measure, anything the constitution doesn't explicitly say is protected isn't protected? So if the government said you couldn't drink water ever again, the constitution doesn't explicitly say you have a right to drink water, so you can just die and that's totally fine. 

I dream of liberty, and taxes are the first thing on the list.
I'm not even sure what this means. Is the implication you would ban taxes? That's a weird way of saying you want to destroy the country. 
#8
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Due process of law means you pass a law, then you put them on trial, then you throw them in jail.
so by your measure, anything the constitution doesn't explicitly say is protected isn't protected?
Unfortunately that is the case. So for example owning a gun or speech. They are enumerated rights.

"life, liberty, or property" guarantees nothing if a legislature passes a law, a prosecutor charges, and a jury convicts.


So if the government said you couldn't drink water ever again, the constitution doesn't explicitly say you have a right to drink water, so you can just die and that's totally fine. 
It's not fine. It's objectively immoral. It would however be constitutional if you replace "government" with "federal/state congress enact a veto proof law".


I dream of liberty, and taxes are the first thing on the list.
I'm not even sure what this means. Is the implication you would ban taxes?
I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.


That's a weird way of saying you want to destroy the country.
You've lost this debate before, you just don't remember.

#9
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Unfortunately that is the case. So for example owning a gun or speech. They are enumerated rights.
no it isn't. And the Supreme court ruled that it wasn't the case. And decades of case law upheld that it wasn't the case. The only reason it isn't the case today is that the republicans packed the court with far right wing assholes. 

It's not fine. It's objectively immoral. It would however be constitutional if you replace "government" with "federal/state congress enact a veto proof law".
It would not be constitutional. The courts would strike such a law down. 

I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.
How do you imagine such a thing would go? Because the obvious answer is the collapse of society. Then some sort of military strong man seizes power and makes a new government, one with taxes. There is a reason taxes exist in every country in the world. They aren't optional. 
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unfortunately that is the case. So for example owning a gun or speech. They are enumerated rights.
no it isn't.
Yes it is.


And the Supreme court ruled that it wasn't the case.
A ruling that is obviously wrong if it occurred since it would imply that courts can declare an incomplete set of rights by whim.

Partial rights to liberty is just a deceptive way to describe inequitable tyranny.

For example if you ban walking down a street except for white people what you've really done is ban black people from walking down the street.


It's not fine. It's objectively immoral. It would however be constitutional if you replace "government" with "federal/state congress enact a veto proof law".
It would not be constitutional.
It would be constitutional.


The courts would strike such a law down. 
If the definition of constitutional is what courts would strike down, then Roe v Wade was unconstitutional. QED


I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.
How do you imagine such a thing would go?
Well, if you have a better system ready to go.


Because the obvious answer is the collapse of society.
Yea that's what they said about seceding from the UK, ending slavery, letting women vote, and failing to imprison homosexuals.


There is a reason taxes exist in every country in the world.
Yea that reason is: people with a monopoly on military power are going to use it to keep it.
#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A ruling that is obviously wrong if it occurred since it would imply that courts can declare an incomplete set of rights by whim.
I mean, at this point there is no point discussing this with you. The supreme court and decades of case law say that you are wrong. a couple of far right wing judges packed in to intentionally skue the court agree with you. You say it is "obviously wrong", but most lawyers and judges would disagree with you. I don't know how we can discuss it further if you think your personal opinion is somehow "obviously right" when most experts agree you are wrong. 

Partial rights to liberty is just a deceptive way to describe inequitable tyranny.
as opposed to what? Every right is partial. Every. single. one. There is no such thing as a right without limits. 

I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.
How do you imagine such a thing would go?
Well, if you have a better system ready to go.
you didn't answer my question. How do you think a system without taxes would exist? How would society not collapse into some dictatorial mess?

Yea that's what they said about seceding from the UK, ending slavery, letting women vote, and failing to imprison homosexuals.
I mean, assholes will always want to protect their power. But I can't think of any way in which society is even possible without taxes. And so far you have failed to give any indication of why it wouldn't go exactly as I describe. 

#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
A ruling that is obviously wrong if it occurred since it would imply that courts can declare an incomplete set of rights by whim.
I mean, at this point there is no point discussing this with you.
Not after you were so clearly proven wrong I know.


You say it is "obviously wrong", but most lawyers and judges would disagree with you.
Don't know if that's true but I don't care. The text means what it means. Interpretations which lead to contradictions and absurdities are not relevant when interpretations that don't lead to contradictions and absurdities are possible.


Partial rights to liberty is just a deceptive way to describe inequitable tyranny.
as opposed to what? Every right is partial. Every. single. one. There is no such thing as a right without limits. 
The limits of a right are in its definition and the definition flows from the justification if the right is real (objective).

That has nothing to do with what is written in the constitution. If courts get to take words out of context and use them to justify some rights in some circumstances (depending on whim since using that technique could just as easily justify any claim of a right) then the constitution does not matter, only the opinion of judges; and you can't assert that the opinion of judges is the final word because you're complaining about the opinion of judges.


I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.
How do you imagine such a thing would go?
Well, if you have a better system ready to go.
you didn't answer my question. How do you think a system without taxes would exist?
Imagine a road. Now imagine it was built by stealing. Now imagine it was built by loans secured against future tolls.

Voila. Enlightenment.


How would society not collapse into some dictatorial mess?
If tax burden guarantees democracy then how do you explain the fascists? The romans? Every empire?

Voting isn't that expensive.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 Roe v. Wade has been established case law for decades. 
Homophobic laws were established case law for centuries.  Precedent, status quo, and tradition is irrelevant.

How would putting it back be corruption?
Because John Oliver is trying to buy votes in the Supreme Court by getting Thomas out of there and replacing him with a judge Biden would appoint who would be pro Roe V Wade.

Roe v. Wade has been established case law for decades. It was upheld over and over and over. So the supreme court repealing it was corruption.
If the 1st 2 sentences are true, it doesn't make the 3rd sentence true as that's not what corruption is.

How would putting it back be corruption?  It has decades of case law supporting it and it is overwhelmingly popular. So your base premise doesn't make sense. 
Your 2nd and 3rd sentence have nothing to do with whether or not it's curropt.  It's like someone saying, "I'm not racist; I have a kitten".  Somebody having a kitten (even if true) is no proof that they aren't racist.

It's corruption because John Oliver is trying to buy votes.

I'm consistently against corruption.

I don't even like Thomas since he's a hypocrite; but I don't like leftists claiming curroption is bad (unless they can use it for left wing causes).
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because John Oliver is trying to buy votes in the Supreme Court by getting Thomas out of there and replacing him with a judge Biden would appoint who would be pro Roe V Wade.
lol a comedian is trying to buy a vote? Seriously? that is your argument? His point is that Thomas' vote was bought a long time ago by right wing donors. Read up on all the stuff right wing donors have bought him. There is no chance oliver could outbid them. 

If the 1st 2 sentences are true, it doesn't make the 3rd sentence true as that's not what corruption is.
I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.

It's corruption because John Oliver is trying to buy votes.
that has got to be the weakest argument I have ever heard. I thought you were joking. Thomas has been taking bribes from right wing billionaires for decades. That is corruption. That is the right buying court decisions. A comedian makes a joke about it to show how corrupt thomas is and you take the joke as corruption, but ignore the actual bribes he has been getting for years. 
Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
So are you saying it's fake and that Oliver was joking?

If so, then fine.

Corruption shouldn't exist at all, but I imagine left wing judges are curropt and the left doesn't call it out nearly as much as the right wing judge curroption.

I call them both out equally.

I thought the left was praising the curroption when it benefitted them.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
So are you saying it's fake and that Oliver was joking?
is that a serious question? Are you asking me if the comedian saying something on his comedy show was joking?

Corruption shouldn't exist at all, but I imagine left wing judges are curropt and the left doesn't call it out nearly as much as the right wing judge curroption.
I mean, maybe. But most billionaires are rightwing, because the right loves to hand them money and tax loopholes. There are VERY few left wing billionaires. So most of the bribes come from the right. 

I call them both out equally.
You say that, but you didn't. You called out john oliver for making a joke about bribes, but don't seem to actually care that thomas has been accepting lavish bribes for literally decades from rightwing billionaires. If you actually called out both equally you would be calling for Thomas to resign. 

I thought the left was praising the curroption when it benefitted them.
Sometimes people on the left do. In this case, he was joking to highlight the fact that it is technically legal to bribe a SCOTUS judge, and that rightwing billionaires have been doing that for decades. But you care more about the joke from the left than the decades of bribes from the right. 
#17
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Thomas has been taking bribes from right wing billionaires for decades. That is corruption. That is the right buying court decisions.
Yet you haven't seen any evidence of Biden's corruption. LOL

Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
But most billionaires are rightwing, because the right loves to hand them money and tax loopholes.
I looked up at one time that 52% of billionaire voters voted for Trump; 42% against.

So they are about as right wing as men, but left wing ones you can easily find.

 If you actually called out both equally you would be calling for Thomas to resign. 
I would prefer it if corruption was just outlawed and he could keep his position, with the penalty for being corrupt after a certain date being impeachment (and there should be 1 representative per 50K American Citizens so it's harder to bribe them all and so representation is more decentralized so the house wouldn't be hypocritical when they vote out the corrupt).  The senate should be abolished because it represents a Vermont resident about 70x more than a CA resident because CA has a population about 70x as big.  States would only exist as containers to make sure your district doesn't completely change borders due to accumulation with federal representation.

But you care more about the joke from the left than the decades of bribes from the right. 
I thought Oliver was serious, like unironically.
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
I looked up at one time that 52% of billionaire voters voted for Trump; 42% against.
whether or not they voted for trump does not tell you if they are right wing. Trump isn't rightwing. He's an idiot who jackknifes back and forth because he has no actual beliefs of his own other than money=good. 

I would prefer it if corruption was just outlawed and he could keep his position
so your argument is that the obviously, extremely corrupt SCOTUS should be allowed to keep his job after accepting millions upon millions of dollars in bribes as long as he promises not to do it again? I'm guessing if it had been a left wing judge taking bribes from a billionaire you would not have that opinion. 

I thought Oliver was serious, like unironically.
I'm guessing he would have paid the money if Thomas accepted. But I don't think he ever thought he would accept. Because:
1) thomas makes WAY more than that from his billionaire friends and accepting would end the gravy train.
2) he still thinks of himself as a serious judge. If he accepted it would mean publicly accepting that he has always been for sale. I'm sure he wants his legacy to not be the SCOTUS that was publicly bought. 

So I don't think it was a serious offer in the sense that he didn't believe for a second he would ever pay it. The point was to highlight that it wasn't illegal to offer a SCOTUS a bribe and that Thomas has been getting legally bribed for decades. And it also has the bonus effect of getting right wing people to say that attempting to bribe a SCOTUS is bad and should be punished. At which point, you can just transition and say "well then let's start punishing thomas and the people who have been bribing him". There is no way for republicans to respond to this that doesn't show their hypocrisy. Either they are fine with SCOTUS' being bribed and Oliver's offer is fine. Or they aren't fine with SCOTUS' being bribed, and therefore Thomas' behavior is wrong and he should be removed. Sadly, most republicans respond with hypocrisy. IE Bribing them is wrong, but thomas should get a pass for all his corruption because..... reasons. Basically, what you did. 
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 Trump isn't rightwing. He's an idiot who jackknifes back and forth because he has no actual beliefs of his own other than money=good. 
What is right wing/left wing by your metric?

so your argument is that the obviously, extremely corrupt SCOTUS should be allowed to keep his job after accepting millions upon millions of dollars in bribes as long as he promises not to do it again? 
I would answer yes to that because I don't know the alternative.  If every supreme court judge got fired for corruption, then it would empty the court, meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges; 9 left wing judges, and then future conservative policy would be virtually impossible to implement, so it leads to one party rule (and places where politicians don't have to worry about re election tend to not be good places to live).  Same thing if Trump gets in power and 9 conservative judges come to power.

I would rather outlaw the corruption and any future corruption gets punished with impeachment.

IE Bribing them is wrong, but thomas should get a pass for all his corruption because..... reasons. Basically, what you did. 
I've been against curroption for a while; I didn't vote Trump in 2020; I voted Jorgenson.

It's more like the democrats say, "Corruption is bad" and the conservatives stay silent on it because they know the democrats are correct, but they didn't have the guts to agree with a democrat on even the mildest of political claims.

It's why the conservatives won't say even from the sloganist perspective that Black Lives Matter (because it would be agreeing with the left).  Although from the sloganist perspective, I am pro BLM and IOTBW; from the non sloganist perspective, I am neither.

The right refuses to give the left credit where its due on modern day controversial issues because they are hacks.  I'm not a hack.
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is right wing/left wing by your metric?
honestly, the term doesn't really mean anything any more. But broadly, you can be economically right wing, and/or culturally right wing. Economically would be things like being fiscally conservative, funneling money to the rich, pretending to care about the poor while crushing them. Culturally right wing is things like hating immigrants, hating gay people, hating trans people, hating women etc. 

Trump isn't really any of those things. Economically he is totally fine with big government. He ran record deficits. He loves giving money to the rich, but that is just because it benefits him. Socially, I don't think he even cares. He just does whatever he thinks will make him popular. He was pro-abortion a few years before deciding that the republicans were dumb enough for him to trick them into voting for him. 

I would answer yes to that because I don't know the alternative.  If every supreme court judge got fired for corruption, then it would empty the court, meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges
what? Why do you think every judge has accepted millions of dollars in bribes? They all probably have taken the odd gift here and there. But nothing on the level of Thomas' corruption. 

meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges; 9 left wing judges, and then future conservative policy would be virtually impossible to implement
gotcha. so you don't care about corruption. Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court. 

so it leads to one party rule (and places where politicians don't have to worry about re election tend to not be good places to live).
This doesn't make sense. Why would liberal judges mean one party rule?

I would rather outlaw the corruption and any future corruption gets punished with impeachment.
that's basically, "I want to sweep corruption under the rug for my own political benefit". And I'm sure when more corruption came up, you'd have the same reaction of cover it up and move on.

The right refuses to give the left credit where its due on modern day controversial issues because they are hacks.  I'm not a hack.
I mean, fair enough. You certainly seem less "hackish" than most people on the right. But your position is to protect someone you know is super corrupt because it benefits you politically. How does that not make you a hack? If you actually cared about corruption, you should want corrupt people removed. Not just removing corrupt people when it is convenient for you.
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
gotcha. so you don't care about corruption. Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court. 
I care about curroption but I don’t want one party rule on the court.  Just outlaw curroption from here on out.

Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court.
If right wing policy was unpopular, then no Republican would have ever made it into the White House.

Why would liberal judges mean one party rule?
If it’s 1-2 liberal judges, then it wouldn’t be one party rule.  If all 9 judges are liberals, then it is one party rule.  

I believe every Supreme Court judge is curropt.  Just like if Trump wins in 2024, I wouldn’t want to fire all the left wing judges and have Trump give conservatives one party rule on the court.

But your position is to protect someone you know is super corrupt because it benefits you politically.
My position is if Thomas is the only curropt judge, then I’m cool with sacking him and replacing him.  If all the judges are curropt, then just outlaw the curroption.  

Like if Trump outlawed curroption, fired all the curropt judges if all of them are curropt, and replaced them with MAGA psychos, you (and I) wouldn’t like that.

Areas with one party rule are bad places to live because politicians don’t have to focus on making the area better because they feel they will win no matter what.

The more battleground an area is, the better it is to live there (generally speaking).

Ideological diversity is a strength.
#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
I care about curroption but I don’t want one party rule on the court.  Just outlaw curroption from here on out.
your argument is "you care about corruption, but want corrupt people on the court to suit your political agenda". That means you only care about corruption when it benefits you to care. Which is the same as not caring. 

If right wing policy was unpopular, then no Republican would have ever made it into the White House.
no, it does not. Look at polling on individual policies. Health care, women's rights etc. All of the "core" right wing policies are unpopular. Republicans win elections primarily on fear mongering, lies and cheating (gerrymandering etc). 

If it’s 1-2 liberal judges, then it wouldn’t be one party rule.  If all 9 judges are liberals, then it is one party rule.
you are equating views with political parties. This doesn't make sense. 

I believe every Supreme Court judge is curropt.  Just like if Trump wins in 2024, I wouldn’t want to fire all the left wing judges and have Trump give conservatives one party rule on the court.
there is conservative one party rule. Because when republicans pick judges, they exclusively pick far right loons hand picked by right wing think tanks. When democracts pick judges they tend to be centrist, maybe a bit left. It the republicans that are obsessed with packing the court. And they are obessed with it because they know their policies (like banning abortion) are super unpopular. so the need to ram it down people's throats with the courts because if they did in in congress they would get destroyed. 

My position is if Thomas is the only curropt judge, then I’m cool with sacking him and replacing him.  If all the judges are curropt, then just outlaw the curroption.  
I think you will find most people involved in government are corrupt to at least some degree. Thomas is the only one that is obviously, overwhelmingly corrupt. 

Like if Trump outlawed curroption, fired all the curropt judges if all of them are curropt, and replaced them with MAGA psychos, you (and I) wouldn’t like that.
true. But there is 0 evidence that the democrats would, or have ever, put a psycho on the bench. It is the republicans who are obsessed with court packing for political gain.

Areas with one party rule are bad places to live because politicians don’t have to focus on making the area better because they feel they will win no matter what.
you keep repeating this. But there is no evidence the democrats do this. Or that biden getting to appoint all the judges would cause one party rule. Judges aren't supposed to even have political affiliations. 

The more battleground an area is, the better it is to live there (generally speaking).
no, this is really untrue. The solution is for the court to be impartial. You want judges that are not politically active. Who are not going to pick sides based on political party. But republicans exclusively pick based on how they believe they will rule on culture war issues. 

Ideological diversity is a strength.
the courts are not supposed to be using ideology to make decisions. The fact that they do is a core part of the problem. The republicans politicized the court. 
Topic's author
#24
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
your argument is "you care about corruption, but want corrupt people on the court to suit your political agenda". That means you only care about corruption when it benefits you to care. Which is the same as not caring. 
You are dodging my point.  Do you want one party rule?  Because one party rule (whether democrat or republican) is dangerous.

Look at polling on individual policies. Health care, women's rights etc. All of the "core" right wing policies are unpopular. Republicans win elections primarily on fear mongering, lies and cheating (gerrymandering etc). 
I don't trust polling outlets.  If they were accurate, everyone voted on abortion, and 60% of the US population was pro choice, then this country on average would be about as blue as NY is in our time.  If it was 55% (the pro Public option or Medicare for all grouping), this the average in the country would be like Colorado.

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the national popular vote.

If the fear mongering is majoritarian in their belief, then these are instances of the majoritarian position being the right wing position.

you are equating views with political parties. This doesn't make sense. 
Why not?  What makes someone a political party are their views.  If someone agreed with Trump 100% of the time but called themselves a democrat, they would be wrong.

there is conservative one party rule. Because when republicans pick judges, they exclusively pick far right loons hand picked by right wing think tanks. When democracts pick judges they tend to be centrist, maybe a bit left.
The left is just as extreme as the right and the political compass test is inaccurate with what they classify as left/center/right wing.

true. But there is 0 evidence that the democrats would, or have ever, put a psycho on the bench. 
What is psycho?  I believe in your view, psycho and social conservative are synonymous.  To me, they are not.  Like if someone hated Trump and wanted to ban abortion at 15 weeks nationwide, wanted constitutional carry nationwide, was anti UHC, wanted to eliminate Medicaid (a consequence of cutting government spending and fiscal conservatism), they aren't a trump hack, but you still think they are psychotic because they are socially and fiscally conservative and they govern as such.

 It is the republicans who are obsessed with court packing for political gain.
Both parties are.  I prefer a Supreme Court with 3-6 left wing judges and 3-6 right wing ones.

Judges aren't supposed to even have political affiliations. 
They do have party biases and it's foolish to deny this.

 The solution is for the court to be impartial.
This is wishful thinking.  Everyone has biases.

Who are not going to pick sides based on political party. But republicans exclusively pick based on how they believe they will rule on culture war issues. 
So do democrats.  Do you think Biden is going to appoint a judge that is anti Roe V Wade?  No.  

Trump picked a judge based on how he thinks the judge would rule on culture war issues (abortion, Trump issues).

Biden also picked a judge based on how he thinks the judge would rule on culture war issues (abortion, Trump issues).

When the right states an opinion (abortion is murder), it's political.  When the left states an opinion (abortion is healthcare), it's non-partisan.

It's only political when conservatives do it according to the left.  It's political when anyone does it.
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are dodging my point.  Do you want one party rule?  Because one party rule (whether democrat or republican) is dangerous.
I'm not dodging your point. I'm pointing out that you only care about corruption when it is politically useful to you. When it might endanger the right wing control of the court you don't want a corrupt judge to be punished. Also, when judges aren't politicized and chosen solely to make specific rulings, then it has nothing to do with "one party rule". It is the republicans that insist on packing the court with politically chosen judges.

 and 60% of the US population was pro choice, then this country on average would be about as blue as NY is in our time.  If it was 55% (the pro Public option or Medicare for all grouping), this the average in the country would be like Colorado.
the issue is that people are more complicated than single issues. Most people are pro-choice. But lots of people believed republican lies when they said that they wouldn't support overturning roe. Or when they said that any laws about it would be common sense. When roe was overturned and republicans started racing to ban all abortions as fast as they could, people realized that the republicans had been lying to them and it drove them to vote in large numbers. 

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the national popular vote.
true. And donald trump has never won the popular vote. He lost to hilary by 3 million votes in 2016. He lost to Biden by 7 million votes. 

The left is just as extreme as the right and the political compass test is inaccurate with what they classify as left/center/right wing.
no. the left's goals are usually about giving more protection, more services to people. The right is about stripping rights, hating people etc. Extreme left is free healthcare. Extreme right is lynching transgender people and immigrants. 

Both parties are.  I prefer a Supreme Court with 3-6 left wing judges and 3-6 right wing ones.
no, this is untrue. The left didn't really care about the supreme court until it became super obvious how far republicans were willing to go to pack the court. Now that those right wing judges are stripping people of their rights, it has become a literal matter of survival. But only as a response to the right's politicization of the court. 
Topic's author
#26
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm pointing out that you only care about corruption when it is politically useful to you
I don't want any politicians corrupt, but the penalty for corruption shouldn't be termination (even if it's corruption before it was outlawed).  Otherwise,if the minimum wage is $14 an hour in a state and it bumps up to $15/hour on Jan 1, 2025, then you would have to punish all companies that pay below $15/hour even before Jan 1, 2025.  After Jan 1, sure; but before Jan 1, you can't.  You can't punish people for things that they do when it was legal when they did the action.

 It is the republicans that insist on packing the court with politically chosen judges.
Every POTUS wants judges that will rule in their favor.  There is a reason all the republicans voted for Kavenough and all the democrats voted against him (with very few exceptions if any).

the issue is that people are more complicated than single issues. 
Are you willing to concede any issue to the republicans where the right wing position is the majority?  Most republicans according to Pew believe that whether a person is a man or woman is decided by sex at birth and cannot be different than the sex.  Does this mean the left should fall lock step with Matt Walsh on this issue?  I wouldn't expect them too.

But lots of people believed republican lies when they said that they wouldn't support overturning roe.
If Kavanaugh was pro choice, then the GOP wouldn't appoint him.  The constitution is like the bible; left wingers will interpret it for their best interests and so will the right.

When roe was overturned and republicans started racing to ban all abortions as fast as they could, people realized that the republicans had been lying to them and it drove them to vote in large numbers. 
Democrats did well in the midterms not because of abortion (because people have known the GOP was anti-abortion legalization for a long time).  It's the election denial stuff (the stuff that is new) that turned many people away from the GOP.  Abortion is an older issue than, "Did Trump win in 2020?" (he did not).

true. And donald trump has never won the popular vote. He lost to hilary by 3 million votes in 2016. He lost to Biden by 7 million votes. 
Correct; and although I support getting rid of the electoral college (under the condition that the right gets something in return; otherwise it's just making it easier for democrats to win federal elections like raising the voting age to 21 so it's unknown which party has the advantage overall), it is currently the rule, so you play by the rules until they get changed.  But non electoral compact states with democrat majorities haven't joined the electoral compact, so they will preach about the need to get rid of the electoral college, but when they get in power, they don't act on it.

 no. the left's goals are usually about giving more protection, more services to people. 
The left does not want to give more protection to the unborn (and this is fine, but then don't act like it's the left's consistent ethos).  The libetarians preach small government and liberty and they give the left credit when it's due, so their ideology is consistent.  But those that want more protection for everyone are the safeterians; who prioritize safety above pretty much everything else.


 The right is about stripping rights
Only some rights.  They care less about gay rights and trans rights and immigrant rights, but they support unvaccinated rights and gun rights, although if there was a trans person who was vocal about how much they didn't want to get vaccinated, then I don't think the right would cover them like they did Kyrie Irving (black unvaccinated guy).  

 The left didn't really care about the supreme court until it became super obvious how far republicans were willing to go to pack the court. Now that those right wing judges are stripping people of their rights, it has become a literal matter of survival. But only as a response to the right's politicization of the court. 
Obama wanted judges that agreed with him over half of the time; same with Trump; same thing with Bush (it's how you got bush appointed Clarance Thomas; there is a reason Bush didn't appoint RBG).

The Supreme Court is former presidents having power.  Trump was very lucky to get 3 judges (and this made pro choice advocates very unlucky).

I'm pro choice, but abortion is very avoidable; if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, then she should make sure her boyfriend has a vasectomy before they have sex and that the vasectomy gets doctor approved (and pre vasectomy sperm is stored in a hospital freezer if kids are ever wanted).  It solves the abortion debate.


#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Otherwise,if the minimum wage is $14 an hour in a state and it bumps up to $15/hour on Jan 1, 2025, then you would have to punish all companies that pay below $15/hour even before Jan 1, 2025.
that isn't even remotely comparable. The job of a judge is to make impartial rulings. Their code of conduct isn't supposed to allow them to do anything that could even call the impartiality of the court into question. Taking bribes from people who have cases before your court isn't technically illegal for the supreme court. But everyone knows that is a terrible thing to do. So your comparison is rediculous.

Every POTUS wants judges that will rule in their favor.  There is a reason all the republicans voted for Kavenough and all the democrats voted against him (with very few exceptions if any).
that reason is that republicans' goal for decades has been to pack the court. Democrats ruled against him because he was unqualified. Republicans voted for him because he was a right wing hack that would vote in their favor. 

Are you willing to concede any issue to the republicans where the right wing position is the majority?  Most republicans according to Pew believe that whether a person is a man or woman is decided by sex at birth and cannot be different than the sex.  Does this mean the left should fall lock step with Matt Walsh on this issue?  I wouldn't expect them too.
I guess that depends on what Matt Walsh says, because I have no idea. The polling suggests that the majority think that a person's gender is determined at birth, but that transgender people should be protected from persecution. Basically the majority opinion is that the transgendered people are weird but shouldn't be discriminated against. I'm guessing that is not matt walsh's position. 

If Kavanaugh was pro choice, then the GOP wouldn't appoint him.  The constitution is like the bible; left wingers will interpret it for their best interests and so will the right.
there's the moving goal posts. The right wing has cried for years and years about how the constitution needed to be read literally. no interpretation. 

Correct; and although I support getting rid of the electoral college (under the condition that the right gets something in return; otherwise it's just making it easier for democrats to win federal elections like raising the voting age to 21 so it's unknown which party has the advantage overall),
so you are only in favor of doing something democratic, if you also do something undemocratic at the same time to allow the unpopular party to have a chance at power? How does that make sense?

The left does not want to give more protection to the unborn (and this is fine, but then don't act like it's the left's consistent ethos).
the left wants to give more protection to people. A fetus is not a person. At some point a fetus becomes a person, but almost no one thinks that a fertilized egg should have the protections of a person. And that is what the right wants.

The libetarians preach small government and liberty and they give the left credit when it's due, so their ideology is consistent.
libertarianism is basically just a tool to help the rich. The goal is to cut protections and services for the poor, and keep the stuff that benefits rich people. 

they support unvaccinated rights
there is no such thing. The government has had the power to mandate vaccinations for a very long time. 

and gun rights
yes, they support the profits of the gun lobby who are generous donors. 

Obama wanted judges that agreed with him over half of the time
obama picked centrist judges. Maybe a little left of center, but nothing significant. Trump picked judges who were as far right as possible and as young as possible so they could stay and corrupt the court for as long as possible. 

Trump was very lucky to get 3 judges (and this made pro choice advocates very unlucky).
it wasn't luck. It was abuse of power by the senate. The refused to hold a vote on a candidate for a pick under Obama which had never happened before because it was "too close to an election" like a year before the end of his term. Then like a month before the end of trump's term they rammed through a pick as fast as possible before Biden could take over. They confirmed their far right wing choice like a week before the election. What they did wasn't illegal, but they definitely abused their power to seize control of the senate. 

I'm pro choice, but abortion is very avoidable; if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, then she should make sure her boyfriend has a vasectomy before they have sex and that the vasectomy gets doctor approved (and pre vasectomy sperm is stored in a hospital freezer if kids are ever wanted).  It solves the abortion debate.
As a rule, I don't think abortion is a good thing. We should do everything possible to make sure it isn't needed. But there is a couple of problems with your position.

1) the people opposing abortion are the same people who oppose things to prevent abortion. Such as sex ed for teenagers so they know how to safely have sex without getting pregnant. Right wing people fight against this, but then blame the teenagers when they get pregnant. 

2) The right wing position is entirely hypocritical. They don't actually care about children, they care about controlling women. If they actually cared about children, then they would want to support children after they are born. Funding orphanages, child benefits etc. But right wing people fight to cut this kind of support. The moment a baby is born, they don't give a shit any more. 

3) Your vasotomy idea is ok, but has flaws. Like who is going to pay for them? Most of the country can't afford a vasectomy. Or what happens when the vasectomy doesn't take? Or if the vasectomy heals itself? Both of these things can happen and lead to a man who had a vasectomy still getting someone pregnant. Having government funded vasectomies would help to address the financial issues with your idea though. But it definitely isn't a solution to the entire problem.


Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Taking bribes from people who have cases before your court isn't technically illegal for the supreme court. But everyone knows that is a terrible thing to do. So your comparison is ridiculous.
This doesn't change that you can't punish people for things that were legal when they did them.  It would be like punishing a woman who got an abortion when it was legal for her to get one in the state she was in.  Not even the most hardcore anti-abortion politician is advocating punishing women that got abortions when it was legal for them to do so.  People are a product of their environment.  With curroption, change the environment by outlawing curroption while not punishing those that were curropt when it was legal.

  Democrats ruled against him because he was unqualified.
Every anti Roe V Wade judge the right could present the democrats would argue is unqualified.  The same thing for any left wing judge in the eyes of generic republican politicians.

 I guess that depends on what Matt Walsh says, because I have no idea.
Matt Walsh'es position is that a woman is an adult human with XX chromosomes (a majoritarian position).

 The right wing has cried for years and years about how the constitution needed to be read literally. 
The right doesn't advocate that.  Otherwise, if someone abuses a child, then they could get off under the, "right to privacy" law.  If Warrants are an exception, then that could be applied to abortion as well if it is banned.

 so you are only in favor of doing something democratic, if you also do something undemocratic at the same time to allow the unpopular party to have a chance at power
I am a pro balance guy; it seems every single way to increase the number of people who can vote in the election benefits democrats and would make the GOP irrelevant.  Before it was obvious the electoral college helped republicans, nobody was advocating getting rid of it.  Now, the democrats are advocating that position because they know it helps their team and they hope the GOP doesn't realize that (even though they do).  Nobody was trying to make PR a state until they realized it would be super left wing, then the democrats adopted the idea.

the left wants to give more protection to people. A fetus is not a person. At some point a fetus becomes a person, but almost no one thinks that a fertilized egg should have the protections of a person. And that is what the right wants.
Around 40% of the US population believes a zygote deserves the same legal protection as a born human; if the position was at flat earth level popularity, then Roe V Wade would still be the law.  This is not almost no one.

libertarianism is basically just a tool to help the rich. 
Libetarianism's goal is economic and social liberty; so there is the low taxes on the rich (which they interpret as economic liberty) but then there is also the "end the war on drugs", "repeal Qualified immunity", "abolish ICE" that libetarians also support.  Most are even pro choice.  Claiming it's just, "low taxes for the rich" is inaccurate.  You agree with libetarians on many social issues.

there is no such thing. The government has had the power to mandate vaccinations for a very long time. 
Well with the COVID vacciene, that power doesn't exist and there are a lot of people who didn't want the COVID vax, so it looks like the government won't be able to exclude 30% of the population from society.

yes, they support the profits of the gun lobby who are generous donors. 
The right supports the gun lobby as much as the left supports the planned parenthood lobby. 

The left's reason for wanting abortion to be legal isn't, "so planned parenthood can make money"; it's, "People should have the right to abort their kids".

The right's reason for wanting AR 15s to be legal isn't, "so the NRA can make money"; it's, "People should have the right to own AR 15s".

obama picked centrist judges.
Obama picked Pro Roe Judges; Trump picked Anti Roe judges.

 Republicans voted for him because he was a right wing hack that would vote in their favor. 
So hackish for the republicans, that he voted against Trump when he claimed Biden won in 2020.

What they did wasn't illegal, but they definitely abused their power to seize control of the senate. 
It was more hypocritical than anything else.  But the solution would be to impeach all judges that were picked during an election year (or maybe have rotating judges; and I prefer the 2nd).  I don't like people having power for too long.

1) the people opposing abortion are the same people who oppose things to prevent abortion. Such as sex ed for teenagers so they know how to safely have sex without getting pregnant. Right wing people fight against this, but then blame the teenagers when they get pregnant. 
I live in a blue state, so I grew up with safe sex.  But they should be promoting things like vasectomies for dudes so the abortion rate pretty much doesn't exist anymore.  It's safer, although I'm waiting until marriage (not religion; I'm an atheist).

2) The right wing position is entirely hypocritical. They don't actually care about children, they care about controlling women. If they actually cared about children, then they would want to support children after they are born. Funding orphanages, child benefits etc. But right wing people fight to cut this kind of support. The moment a baby is born, they don't give a shit any more. 
Arguing that it's hypocritical to be anti abortion and fiscally conservative is like arguing it's hypocritical to be both against murdering homeless people and not wanting them to get free homes.  You can disagree with the 2nd claim if you want, but don't act like it's hypocritical.

 Having government funded vasectomies would help to address the financial issues with your idea though. But it definitely isn't a solution to the entire problem.
I would be fine with this.  However, to address the fact that some don't work, you can conduct post vasectomy sperm samples to make sure the vasectomy works and maybe make it so there is no plausible chance the vasectomy is reversible, but store pre vasectomy sperm in a hospital freezer so it doesn't have to be reversible.