Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by calvin natt, Apr 5, 2022.

Moderators: 7
Page 23 of 245
  1. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    123,510
    Likes Received:
    143,609
    Trophy Points:
    115

    Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.

    Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.

    His remarks were first reported by local outlets NWI.com and WFYI Indianapolis.

    Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.
    ​
    No where in that tweet I posted said "BlAcK pEoPlE aNd WhItE pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T mArRy!!"

    But if not allowing people to get married because of their race isn't racist then I don't know what is.
     
    SlyPokerDog, Jul 19, 2022
    #441
    riverman likes this.
  2. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    123,510
    Likes Received:
    143,609
    Trophy Points:
    115
    Abortion rights are not being decided by the voters in many states.
     
    SlyPokerDog, Jul 19, 2022
    #442
    Tyrant of Ants and SharpeScooterShooter like this.
  3. crandc

    crandc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    21,986
    Likes Received:
    28,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or prohibited from getting married.
     
    crandc, Jul 19, 2022
    #443
    riverman, Tyrant of Ants and SlyPokerDog like this.
  4. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,299
    Likes Received:
    43,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't accusing you of saying that, or even that anyone had made that specific claim. But even the article that you quoted clearly reinterpreted his statements to claim he said something he didn't actually say. That's what I take issue with.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jul 19, 2022
    #444
    SharpeScooterShooter likes this.
  5. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    Possibly. Would the state judicial system be able to override in that case then? Say it found itself onto a state ballot and people voted it in, couldn't the state’s own judicial system override, if deemed unconstitutional?

    I do see right to privacy possibly being a counter as well? Personally, I've never felt government should be involved with marriage, but i also believe in limited government with more power to the states over the feds.
     
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 19, 2022
    #445
  6. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,299
    Likes Received:
    43,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A state's judiciary can only rule in regard to its own laws and constitution; a case has to go to a federal court in order for the US Constitution and amendments to come into play.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jul 19, 2022
    #446
    SharpeScooterShooter likes this.
  7. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    I know. And im conflicted on that one as well. To me, having the federal government say one way or another leaves no room for personal belief aNd is very much fascist to force one way on all.

    To me, the beauty of our country is our individual state freedom. So if enough people dont think/believe like me, I am able to move to an area with more like minded people, without either side dictating their beliefs to the other. The more control we give the federal government, the closer we get to fascism. The more we lean towards individual states’ rights, the more we maintain the ability to to allow all to have their own beliefs.
    Do I believe abortion should be illegal? No. But who am i to tell others who think its bad, that they cant move to an aRea with like minded people and vote for their community to outlaw abortion? Its not my community. My community has laws i agree with on the subject. And their community has laws that agree with what they believe.

    I don't see a problem with that. But i don't see everything.
     
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 19, 2022
    #447
  8. crandc

    crandc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    21,986
    Likes Received:
    28,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. An individual's rights should not be subject to majority rule. If a majority in a state thought only Christians should be allowed to vote, or only white men, is that OK?
    If a majority wants slavery should it be allowed?
     
    crandc, Jul 19, 2022
    #448
    Tyrant of Ants and SharpeScooterShooter like this.
  9. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    Good points.

    So where is the line drawn where states should maintain rights thru majority vote vs. the federal government overruling for all?
     
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 19, 2022
    #449
  10. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    123,510
    Likes Received:
    143,609
    Trophy Points:
    115
    I can understand the Abortion/Roe v Wade debate. I may not agree with one side but I can clearly understand their argument.

    Please explain to me how not allowing people to get married based on the color of their skin isn't just plain hateful racism? Please explain how it's a state's right to allow white & white to marry, and black & black to marry, but not white & black?

    I could maybe understand the argument that state A says no one can be married, or everyone over the age of 18 but under the age of 40 has to be married. I wouldn't agree with it but I could understand it.

    How are states wanting to decide who can be married based on skin colors not racist as fuck?
     
    SlyPokerDog, Jul 19, 2022
    #450
    Phatguysrule likes this.
  11. Phatguysrule

    Phatguysrule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Restricting government intervention allows maximum freedom. Each person can choose for themselves what do do with their own body, which impacts no other people.

    Anything else is government overreach.
     
    Phatguysrule, Jul 19, 2022
    #451
    riverman and Tyrant of Ants like this.
  12. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    I get what everyone saying, but isn't roe vs wade a perfect example of giving the choice over to the states?
    Lets say roe vs wade went the opposite direction. It would be 7 people telling hundreds of millions that no abortions are allowed.
    What if 7 people said that no one in the country can marry anyone outside of their own race?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2022
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 19, 2022
    #452
  13. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,299
    Likes Received:
    43,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ummm... do you see anyone in this thread saying that it's not racist and evil?
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jul 19, 2022
    #453
  14. Phatguysrule

    Phatguysrule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm fine with 7 people granting people more rights. I'm not ok with 7 people restricting people's rights.
     
    Phatguysrule, Jul 19, 2022
    #454
  15. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    Giving that choice to seven people, it goes both ways or no way though. It doesn't matter what you are okay with. Handing our choice to them means giving up control, regardless of how they vote, does it not?
     
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 19, 2022
    #455
  16. crandc

    crandc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    21,986
    Likes Received:
    28,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A place I never heard of, The Village, Oklahoma, elected as mayor an out gay man who had served on the city council five years. He was forced to resign due to constant threats, followed everywhere he went, by Christian Republicans.
     
    crandc, Jul 20, 2022
    #456
  17. Phatguysrule

    Phatguysrule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not their job. Their job is to protect individual rights from government abuse.

    There is a reason they have never restricted individual rights before now. They aren't supposed to. They have been corrupted, and our response needs to be swift and firm. Each Justice is going to have to lose power and prestige.

    We need more justices and they need to be more regularly appointed.
     
    Phatguysrule, Jul 20, 2022
    #457
    Tyrant of Ants and SharpeScooterShooter like this.
  18. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,299
    Likes Received:
    43,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Their job is to protect individual and states rights.

    The Supreme Court is not restricting any individual's rights. They are, however, granting states the freedom to restrict individuals' rights.
     
    PtldPlatypus, Jul 20, 2022
    #458
    SharpeScooterShooter likes this.
  19. Phatguysrule

    Phatguysrule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same thing. Giving somebody the right to kill somebody is the same as killing them yourself.

    That's abuse of the power they've been granted, and why it's never been done before.
     
    Phatguysrule, Jul 20, 2022
    #459
  20. SharpeScooterShooter

    SharpeScooterShooter SharpeShooter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2022
    Messages:
    6,263
    Likes Received:
    5,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Freeloader
    Location:
    Mom’s basement
    agreed we need more judges and term limits. But as it stands this is what it is and it cant currently it go both ways until the system is changed. The point is, we currently have a system that is close to fascism already. 7 people who can remain in power until they die get to dictate the rights of all.

    Very much disagree. That would be the same as a person who sells a gun to someone who kills someone the gun seller is now no better than the person who killed with the gun.
    To give the choice to the individual to kill doesn't mean the person giving the choice to the other is a killer and to give the choice to a other doesn’t mean they are a killer either until they act on that choice.
    We all make choices. And we all live with the repercussions of bad choices. But to remove the ability to make the choice is, to me, unconstitutional. And fascist.
    Providing choices is not the same as providing rights. I have the right to choose what i want. And depending on my choice i may forfeit future rights. But the choice should always be there for all, should it not?
     
    SharpeScooterShooter, Jul 20, 2022
    #460
Page 23 of 245

Share This Page