The KGB Oracle

Justice Kennedy Retirement

Posted By: Sini

Justice Kennedy Retirement - 06/28/18 12:41 AM

SCOTUS Justice Kennedy retiring effective end of July. Trump will nominate his replacement. Plenty of speculation but no facts so far. Depending on nominations, this can reopen a lot of past battles.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 06/28/18 08:36 PM

We don't have to guess how vacant spot going to be used - they are telling us. They are planning to shut down Muller using SCOTUS. If this is not Exhibit A in impeachment hearing, then I don't know what would count.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/03/18 02:28 PM

Too bad it wont be. Given his lack of anything vaguely resembling a nutsack, I have to think that Paul Ryan actually wants to run for prez eventually. Which wont happen if he were to be the Speaker that presided over the impeachment of a GOP president.

I wonder if Mueller has enough time to do what he needs to do. Its obvious that the Trumpians are working overtime to undermine the investigation in many ways, including setting a narrative meant to dilute further findings that negatively impact them.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/03/18 08:25 PM

This shit again. I wonder if evangelicals still think the bargain with Trump was worth it.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/03/18 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Too bad it wont be. Given his lack of anything vaguely resembling a nutsack, I have to think that Paul Ryan actually wants to run for prez eventually.


Fortunately, he is retiring as a speaker. So whoever crawls out of the swamp to replace him may have more of an exoskeleton.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/04/18 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
This shit again. I wonder if evangelicals still think the bargain with Trump was worth it.


Probably. Often times, few things seem more important to them than ensuring that teenage girls get pregnant, then are forced raise their kid into a life of dire poverty.

Quote
The administration has also cut funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and made dramatic changes in favor of abstinence-oriented programs under the Title X program, which has traditionally helped cover contraceptive services for low-income women.


Because everyone knows horny teens will stop fucking simply because some middle aged adults preach abstinence at them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Quote
After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate.


Or maybe not?

I wish I knew why the evangelicals were so in love with seeing so many young lives screwed over and sent into hardship, but can only guess.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/04/18 11:25 AM

I can only imagine that this is an intentional (i.e. emergent behavior of crowds, not actual plan by a person) strategy to increase birth rate. Low birth rates in Western countries will eventually lead to Western values getting sidelined, probably in favor of some form of Theocracy, possibly even Christian Theocracy.
Posted By: Kaotic

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/05/18 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
I wish I knew why the evangelicals were so in love with seeing so many young lives screwed over and sent into hardship, but can only guess.

Originally Posted by Sini
I can only imagine that this is an intentional (i.e. emergent behavior of crowds, not actual plan by a person) strategy to increase birth rate.


Having been raised in the largely church going southern U.S., I think I can shed some light on this. From Derid's perspective the Christians are advocating for the ruin of young lives. Sini appears to believe that it is some kind of evolutionary imperative to survive. The reality is that these people believe that a fetus is a human life (most from the moment of conception). They don't see it as punishment for the fully formed humans involved. They see it as saving the life of the still forming human in the womb. The only human involved in these situations incapable of defending itself. By that math, any suffering due to the birth of the child is consequence for choices made by the humans with agency. Isn't this the definition of maximum freedom/maximum personal responsibility? In my understanding of this libertarian philosophy, the limits for your freedom are only imposed by the rights of others. Like the right to not to have your life taken from you unless as a consequence of something you've done.

Having said all that, in my experience the idea that these people are advocating for teenage girls to raise their children into a life of dire poverty is a straw man argument. While they do condemn sex before/outside of marriage, they are typically generous people who will work to help people who need it. They also are advocates of adoption (last I checked there are tens of thousands of couples waiting in line to adopt) which doesn't condemn the mother to a life of dire poverty.

Originally Posted by Sini
Low birth rates in Western countries will eventually lead to Western values getting sidelined, probably in favor of some form of theocracy, possibly even Christian Theocracy.

I don't really understand this statement. Western values are largely descended from Judeo-Christian values. I don't really see how you get to Christian theocracy by eroding the values that it would impose.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/05/18 05:10 PM

I see what you are saying Kaotic, but in this context what I was referring to is contraception education vs spending taxpayer money to preach abstinence when it is obviously ineffective, not abortion. Abortion is a different matter.

While I don't agree that a fertilized egg is a human, I can see the perspective that at some point a fetus is a human despite still residing in a womb. I don't claim to know what that point is, though I do think it should generally be a matter for individuals not gov't to decide. That being said, I generally would agree with laws preventing late-term abortions in the third term of pregnancy, disagree with laws and govt interference with 'morning after' pills and other early abortions.. and as for that middle area, I can only shrug and not hold any strong views one way or another. In any case, I won't disagree with someone who asserts that second and even first term fetus are humans - I simply disagree with their prerogative to make that decision on behalf of everyone else.

Generally speaking, teenagers who have kids not only screw up their own lives but the lives of their kids. There are exceptions to this, obviously, but it will hold true as a general socioeconomic pattern and also can be observed as a major contributor to widening gaps in terms of income and education. I don't think this was always the case, but it is in the modern economy for myriad reasons. The means of preventing people from getting prematurely pregnant are widely available when not obstructed by govt from being so, and seeing as educating people on their use and allowing them to be widely available has a strong correlation with reducing both premature pregnancy and abortion, I find it hard to understand why anyone would wish to laser in on peddling ineffective abstinence pushing.

Keep in mind I'm referring to public policy, not what someone might preach in their own church as that is their business and not mine.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/05/18 10:10 PM

People that defend a bunch of tissue as a human life are not consistent in their approach to defending actual human life, as they don't continue defending that life in the same way once it is born as a human. Ask the same pro life people if they support paid maternity leave, universal daycare and so on. Universally they do not. I know why this is the case. Pro life people offload costs of their religious-based moralizing onto others, sometimes with dire consequences for these others. This is as un-libertarian as it gets.

Additionally, you can't effectively ban abortions, just like you can't ban drugs or alcohol. People in need would still find means. Rich people will travel to Canada or EU, poor people will go to illegal (and unsafe) clinics. In this way, banning abortions should be viewed as making abortions less safe for poor people.

Would you support if fasting on Ramadan was attempted to be made into a law, and I as an atheist only had Bacon vs. Allah supreme court decision that allowed me to eat during Ramadan? If you see this as crazy, then you shouldn't support repeal of Roe vs. Wade as there is no difference in believing that fertilized egg is a human and that you should not eat during Ramadan.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Justice Kennedy Retirement - 07/05/18 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kaotic
I don't really understand this statement. Western values are largely descended from Judeo-Christian values. I don't really see how you get to Christian theocracy by eroding the values that it would impose.


Western values developed largely despite Judeo-Christianity. Christianity is as capable and prone to establishing theocracy as Islam. There is historic precedent, there is support for this in scripture.

Watch this video, as it largely summarizes my reasoning for this as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6FgYbMffk
© 2019 The KGB Oracle