and within one week, the SCOTUS has delivered two
unbelievable bad decisions… on par with the “Dred Scott” case…
These two decisions have effectively unraveled America…
one Roe but the other basically prevents any, ANY attempt
to gun control laws… in several ways, the denial to us
the ability to contain guns means that this decision is even
worse than ROE… but of course, as usual, the SCOTUS will
not face the consequences of their actions… gun violence won’t
plague them and the coming free for all in America, won’t
impact the GOP/MAGA parties because they live their safe cocoons
in the suburbs…but for the rest of us, if you thought it was bad
before, schools massacres like the one in Texas, will happen
every single week in America now…and we won’t even get the
usual lame “prayers and thoughts” that the GOP offer us before
frankly, they couldn’t give a shit about lives… for the GOP is
become the death party…killing children, the old, anyone
who isn’t white, murdered by the police,
the GOP has no problem with those deaths…
in fact, the GOP/MAGA party welcomes and embraces those
deaths…the GOP/MAGA party is now the “PRO-DEATH” party…
K: as I am not a “moral nihilist”, your comment doesn’t apply
to me…I am closer to a situational ethics type of guy…
which is to say the situation dictates the ethics/morals…
and that isn’t being a “moral nihilist”…it is a nuanced
position, I will grant you, but that is the life of a liberal,
the universe not black and white, but shades of gray…
Being a moral nihilist myself, please explain to me how my own “fractured and fragmented” assessment of abortion as a moral issue is on par with Evangelical Christians who seem rather adamant that there is but one and only one manner in which to react to abortion as a moral issue: as a sin against God.
Ecmandu: Ok. I just assumed you were iambiguous’ lap dog.
K: just because I hold that IAM is the best philosopher on this
website (and it is not even close) doesn’t assume anything…
E; But I’ll simply accept that a few of your sentences on these boards don’t represent who you are at this minute.
K: assumptions galore here…
E: Let’s examine the gun thing and the abortion thing together.
K: wait, is Ecmudu really IAM and been fooling us all along!
E: The right to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. If your fetus is that tyrannical government, you have a right of self defense.
K: A ‘‘fetus being a tyrannical government’’ and he’s back… there
is absolutely no logical path that somehow turns a fetus into
‘‘tyrannical government’’ thus your fanciful attempt fails…
E: You can’t have them both.
K: apparently you can’t have one…
E: If abortion is outlawed guns should be outlawed.
Unless a fetus is viable, it’s still part of the mother’s body, it’s her decision what to do with her own body.
K: and I’ve been holding this position for 50 years…
A fetus is a tyrannical government if it affects your lifelong happiness. Some people accept the government about to rule their lives and others don’t.
You’re suffering from issues of abstraction and in doing so are shooting yourself in the foot.
I could easily make a case in the Supreme Court that if abortion gets struck down, gun restriction should be used.
They’re arguing against self defense with illegality of abortion.
Nope. On the other hand, you yourself have claimed to have “personally met God and the Devil and Death and Buddha”.
You tell me what He makes of the abortion wars down here.
Well, the personal opinion of this moral nihilist is that in a No God world, those on both sides of the abortion debate are able to make reasonable arguments for and against abortion: abortion.procon.org/
And, thus, what made Roe v. Wade the “best of all possible worlds” is that through “democracy and the rule of law” those on both sides of the issue here in America got something, but neither side got it all.
Now, in some states, all abortions may well be deemed illegal. And since any number of men and women base their view of the law on their moral convictions, why not the day when the Supremes rule that all abortions in all fifty states must be deemed premeditated murder?
No, they won’t bring their Catholic God into the “legal argument”, of course, but who is kidding whom that He is not in there? And 5 of the 9 current Justices are Catholics. And the sixth Neil Gorsuch was raised as a Catholic.
Your philosophy (what peter thinks is the greatest on these boards)
Is all of us standing in place until we all die of dehydration. Can’t figure out any right or wrong action? Let’s all just stand in place forever. Who knows, maybe we’re wrong that we die of dehydration.
In reading the syllabus for the Second and Fourteenth Amendment case, one notes that the justices mention the rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights were preexistent. This is coherent with the text of those documents. However, they mention the preexistence as falling in the domain of the government and people of England. For this we see no case, as the documents explicitly state that the origin of these rights, which predate the passing of the documents that enshirne them, is God. Considering that the justices affirm that, when considering extratextual evidence in order to interpret the text, the text must always take precedence in case of obvious conflict which cannot be accounted for with reference to discrepancies in understanding of terms and concepts during different historical periods, we believe that they are allowing an extralegal philosophical concept that postdates the text wherein only human authorities can constitute origins of law or any concept to take precedence over the clear text. We believe that, when the origin of the rights for the purposes of establishing legitimacy must be fixed, it must be God, and the argument must find a way to define God such that a challenge can be considered legitimate or illegitimate.
We consider it important due to the fact that, when something is not in the text, present interpretation allows for reference to English law. Far from this, when there is doubt regarding the interpretation of the text, the mention in the text of God as origin is clearly meant to forbid an appeal to any source of law that cannot be shown to be God.
Considering the opinion of the court already recognizes the right of the court to revise a previous opinion by the same court, this is worth bearing in mind for future cases.
Obviously, this does not mean that the text can only be altered by God, as the text, which legitimacy is drawn from God, lays out mechanisms for its being altered.
any attempt to link the constitution with a god,
should be met with laughter and derision, for the entire
point of the constitution is to bring justice and equality to
human beings without any reference to a god or religion…
If you link the constitution with a god, you deny human beings
the ability to exists without a god… and BTW, which god?
The norse god, the egyptian god, the greek god, the hindu god,
the muslim god or the christian god?
The text doesn’t mention any other specifications, it only mentions God. In order to challenge its contents, other than by the means enshrined in it, the burden will be on the challenger to show unequivocally that the quoted source constitutes God. Otherwise, it is proscribed by the letter of the law, which all government officials are sworn to uphold, and whose authority extends only to that granted by the documents they swear on.
We find this quote meaningful, from the same syllabus.
Considering that the court opines that the central consideration of the amendment is self defence, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right in reference to self defence (with which we don’t necessarily agree, but it is their official opinion), it is important that it is recorded twice as the official opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, once in Heller and reaffirmed here, that this includes defence against individuals and against the state.
[b]'The man most responsible for shaping a United States Supreme Court that delivered the conservative movement a long-sought victory has spent weeks saying he didn’t think it will be good for his party.
'Publicly, after a draft of the likely decision leaked in May, former President Donald J. Trump was remarkably tight-lipped for weeks about the possible decision, which the court ultimately handed down on Friday, ending federal abortion protections. But privately, Mr. Trump has told people repeatedly that he believes it will be “bad for Republicans.”
‘The decision, Mr. Trump has told friends and advisers, will anger suburban women, a group who helped tilt the 2020 presidential race to Joseph R. Biden Jr., and will lead to a backlash against Republicans in the November midterm elections.’[/b]
Let’s call this the “politics of abortion”.
On the other hand, who the hell really knows what might unfold between now and the November Congressional elections. Let alone between now the 2024 presidential elections.
I am so angered by this court that is full of partisan hacks,
that I would favor eliminating the SCOTUS… as being a
danger to the society and the state… it isn’t enough to
be about the law, which the current Supreme Court has
no interest in, but in the fact that by the actions of
9 people, who are shielded from any consequences of their actions,
have effectively demolished America as an institution…
we have no more constitutional rights as they can be destroyed
by the 9 unelected supreme court judges…
return America to a slavery country, that is now possible,
return women to being nothing more then property,
yep, that is on the docket now… Now some may claim
I exaggerate, but IN fact, all laws and every part of the
constitution is now under siege…
freedom of speech and religion “guaranteed” by the constitution,
that right is now in play… Habeas corpus, is now also in play…
in fact, every single law that protects American freedoms is now
at risk… and you can thank 9 unelected partisans hacks for that…
K: and thus once again, do we live in 1787? do we practice medicine as if
it were 1787? Is the technology the same as in 1787? so, why do we insist
on holding to idea’s that are from 1787? the idea of self-protection made
sense in 1787… but it no longer makes any sense today… the idea of
the modern police force came about in Boston in 1838 and in NY in
1845… thus we have no reason to hold onto the antiquated
idea of self-protection has given by the court…
it is an historical fact, fact that crime is at an all time low
in America… as it is historically around the globe…
In England for example, we see that crime has fallen
in terms of historical rates in every decade… your idea
in self-protection makes no sense in modern America…
I would suggest you look up Wiki “Crimes in the United States”