Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

It's a very common definition of "rights", it's just not the only one.

[Bumber]

I don't know, Republicans seem pretty united on this

Same as the Democrats. Nothing new, just politics.

[Dostoevsky]

Romney has said he'd vote normally on a S.Ct. nominee from Trump: “I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications."

This makes a lame duck (or even pre-election) confirmation quite likely, I'd say.

[SalmonGod]

And Biden has gone on record as saying his goal was to get more conservative judges into the court to overturn Roe v Wade

So do you have an actual source for that? I checked, and found nothing, particularly nothing in that direction that's too young to legally drink. His history on the subject is pretty sub-par, but most of the worst of it seems to be as old or older than me.

His current actual stated position is to set roe v wade as straight up federal law, though, near as I can tell. Seems fairly firmly on the "personally uncomfortable, publicly supportive of legal protection" side of things.

It's extremely mixed. 

Yeah, his publicly stated position is that Roe v Wade is "the law of the land".  Though what I see isn't that he pro-actively states the intention to codify it into law.  He says that he would work on codifying it into law if its status as a legal precedent were endangered somehow. 

On the other hand, he still supports the Hyde Amendment even now.  Which basically means that he's on the slimy side of won't tell anyone they can't, but will make it difficult/impossible for whoever he can, with coincidentally classist/racist consequences.  On top of that, his reason for supporting the Hyde Amendment is stated to be "Those of us who disagree with abortion on religious grounds shouldn't be forced to pay for it."  He considers his position and voting record to be a compromise between respecting people's religious beliefs against abortion, while not forcing their religion on others.  Except it is... just tangentially instead of directly.  It's straight up 20-years-ago republican style religion-based legislating.

And of course, as I've said plenty of times before, platform doesn't matter.  Record and funding matters.  My assessment is Biden would put moderate effort into preventing abortion from becoming explicitly illegal, but that is as far as his support for abortion rights would go.  And if any new schemes were invented during his term to make access to abortion more difficult without explicitly illegalizing it that he would support them.

[McTraveller]

Furthermore, there is no objective definition of "unfair" criteria.

I agree with you there!  And that's part of why there is conflict in the world, and why running a society is difficult.

Of course not. Nobody has a right to buy widgets. Or anything. The person who owns the widget can give it to whomever he or she wants under whatever conditions he or she wants. That's what ownership means.

I think you're moving the goalpost. Nobody (at least nobody I know) argues you have a right to buy something that isn't for sale.  But once something is for sale, there are (or should be) constraints around that, especially regarding discriminatory practices.

[Maximum Spin]

I think you're moving the goalpost. Nobody (at least nobody I know) argues you have a right to buy something that isn't for sale.  But once something is for sale, there are (or should be) constraints around that, especially regarding discriminatory practices.

I disagree, and I am clearly talking about cases where the owner is saying it isn't for sale to you for whatever reason. I am also asserting that not having a right to buy something because it isn't for sale generally also means you don't have a right to buy something because.it isn't for sale specifically; I consider rights to be all-or-nothing.

[misko27]

Oh classic ameripol.

I don't know, Republicans seem pretty united on this

Same as the Democrats. Nothing new, just politics.

Yes you have successfully quoted Lindsey Graham's position on being caught out as a liar, which was "You would have done the same." My first thought upon reading that was imagining MSH angrily ranting in response.

[Rolan7]

That was Ted Cruz's response on CNN, too.  "Everybody has flipped on this issue".  Which is both untrue, and is so blatantly a non answer that even Republicans in the comments were... calling the interviewer Fake News for even asking.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I too imagined MSH angrily ranting when I read that.

It's the right-wing pathos at work as usual - they don't believe anything they say they believe, and so they think everyone else in the world is the same.

[ZBridges]

There is no Constitutional mandate forcing private stores to serve all patrons.  However, when it comes to state and federal services, things are very different.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Private stores generally provide public services, and as such are required to serve all patrons under the Equal Protection Clause (or rather, this is how any reasonable court ought to interpret it).

[ZBridges]

That refers to equal protection under the laws, and it specifically refers to the "state" rather than private business.  In my opinion, that clause only refers to state/federal services.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Private business only operates at the pleasure of the state, and so may be compelled to follow service laws in this manner.

[ZBridges]

Businesses do have the right to not serve some customers, depending on whether the behavior is discriminatory.  So they don't have to provide services to everyone that requests it, but they also cannot discriminate based on protected traits or classes.

For example, you may have seen signs saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service."  That's fine because it doesn't involve a protected class.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My personal favorite is that it's legal to deny service to someone for being a Republican. You'll never see galaxy brain quite like "discrimination against black people should be legal because muh freedom, but discrimination against people who like Trump should be a capital offense because muh freedom".