NATION

PASSWORD

American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:47 pm

Comerciante wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.


What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:48 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Comerciante wrote:It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.


What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?
easy:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51758
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:48 pm

Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.


Welllll…..I haven’t heard one yet (only 3/4s of the way through). Basically; they are trying to save major problems for scotus by eliminating a very unconstituional thing and if they tossed it can cassey things will go back ot the people so they can come together and find solutions for everybody.

Ahhhh what now? It’s laughable as the people really can’t solve much these days.

So far I can see 2 yes votes. There is one male voice I don’t recognize who seemed rather hostile to the pro-choice gal. Possibly three.
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:49 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.


The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

User avatar
American Legionaries
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5916
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:50 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.


The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.


I wonder rather the backlash would be countered by the fervor on the other side.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:50 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.


The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:54 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? Oh what legal grounds could you possibly do that?
easy:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.


Still waiting for your legal argument.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.


What the heck does this mean?

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:55 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.


The electoral backlash would be massive and the pain and suffering it would cause would be even greater.

If the Supreme Court were to ban abortion because the sun orbits the earth, I don't think they'd care too much about public opinion.

User avatar
American Legionaries
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5916
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:55 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:easy:


Still waiting for your legal argument.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.


What the heck does this mean?


I believe "the sun orbits Earth" is their legal argument.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:55 pm

There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51758
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:57 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.


I would be more concerned if they were elected.
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Comerciante
Diplomat
 
Posts: 646
Founded: Dec 25, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Comerciante » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:57 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Comerciante wrote:It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.


What? You declare me and millions of lgbt people to not be persons? On what legal grounds could you possibly do that?

You seem to be missing the point... or are too literal for your own good.

I'm never going to say you are not a person.

I'm just going to make your ability to exercise your rights as a person incredibally difficult, the same way Republicans are trying to add limitations to a person's ability to vote.

I'm essentially going to price gouge the value of freedom making it so the price of exercising such rights is so ridiculously high that it becomes no different than having no rights at all.
Last edited by Comerciante on Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Rumors of CFC affiliates building superweapons in orbit over Earth is fake news. Watch groups have corroborated this even though it would be to quote the BoD "totally rad."

#00: "The first step to acquiring real power, is to learn how to steal it from someone else, the second step is learning how to keep it the third step is to restart from the first step."
"Good and Evil are Two Tall Trees sitting upon a hill, the Tree of Good is Strong and Tall and does not bend, the Tree of Evil is Short and Flimsy when the wind blows Good resists, and breaks and falls on the floor and dies and Evil? well, it bends and it lives."

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:57 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.


There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:58 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.


No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.

User avatar
American Legionaries
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5916
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.


There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.


Don't worry, if you disagree with their decision, you can appeal the ruling to the Extra Supreme Court.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.


There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.


No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.


Oh you poor naïve child.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:59 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:easy:


Still waiting for your legal argument.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:And behold the fields in which half the American electorate planted their fucks, and see that it is barren.


What the heck does this mean?

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:02 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There is no legal "argument" SL because 6 unelected omnipotent legislators who are in office for life could use anything to outlaw anything.

If they had the balls and the brains they could outlaw congress and POTUS as institutions tomorrow and rule by decree.

And by our nation's longstanding tradition of determining what is constitutional or not, trying to stop them would be violating the US Constitution.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:03 pm

Arlenton wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Still waiting for your legal argument.



What the heck does this mean?

That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.


If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:04 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.


If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

Understand this:
Six. Of. Them. Does. Not. Fucking. Bloody. Care.

User avatar
American Legionaries
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5916
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:04 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.


If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.


What are you going to do about it though?

User avatar
Arlenton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10236
Founded: Dec 16, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Arlenton » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:04 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Arlenton wrote:That is the legal argument. There is nothing preventing them from being nonsensical. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional or not, and if they wanted to ban people of Chinese descent from using the phrase "that fish ate my orange" because horses are green, they can do so.


If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 74299
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:05 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
There needs to be legal reasoning. Ogberfell was decided via the Due Process clause and the 14th amendment. You would have to somehow show it does not apply to lgbt people. The Loving case was also used as a basis in the decision.

San Lumen wrote:
No they cannot. This is pure nonsense.


Oh you poor naïve child.


I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21626
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:06 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Oh you poor naïve child.


I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

They could and nobody would be able to stop them short of laying siege to the SCOTUS building.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Great Heathen Air Force, Shrillland, Southwest America, Terminus Station

Advertisement

Remove ads