American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

so?

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.

SL I think you are just scared that the spirit of your constitution is being shat upon from great heights by the Republicans. and tbh? id be too.

[San Lumen]

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.

SL I think you are just scared that the spirit of your constitution is being shat upon from great heights by the Republicans. and tbh? id be too.

No im not. What is treason is crystal clear and not something that can levied against you enemies or those you don't like.

[Eahland]

they perfectly could, because they are the ones "interpreting" the constitution and just like the bible you can manage any favourable interpretation you want.

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

[Ifreann]

Imprisoning people for conspiring to violate the basic rights of millions and millions of people is not, in fact, authoritarianism.

of course it is. It's just authoritarianism you agree with.

Swing and a miss, bud, I don't think we should be imprisoning people at all.

[Farnhamia]

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

Actually, I think it the Mississippi law was written in such a way as to provoke a challenge.

We're very near the end here, so beware of a lock and a new thread.

[San Lumen]

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.

[Shrillland]

Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

Actually, I think it the Mississippi law was written in such a way as to provoke a challenge.

We're very near the end here, so beware of a lock and a new thread.

The thread's set up, I merely await the threshold.

[Farnhamia]

Actually, I think it the Mississippi law was written in such a way as to provoke a challenge.

We're very near the end here, so beware of a lock and a new thread.

The thread's set up, I merely await the threshold.

Good.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.

sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.

[Tarsonis]

of course it is. It's just authoritarianism you agree with.

Swing and a miss, bud, I don't think we should be imprisoning people at all.

then why defend it? just to be contrarian?

[San Lumen]

Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.

sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.

Extremely doubtful.

[Untecna]

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.

SL I think you are just scared that the spirit of your constitution is being shat upon from great heights by the Republicans. and tbh? id be too.

I think we all are.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.

Extremely doubtful.

you also said a lot of things about donald trump not winning in 2016 and a load of bullshit about covid so excuse me if i dont particularly value your alleged ability for prognostication.

[Tarsonis]

Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.

sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.

Not really no. Not how this works.

[Ifreann]

Swing and a miss, bud, I don't think we should be imprisoning people at all.

then why defend it? just to be contrarian?

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining that you're wrong, and I'm doing that because I would prefer that "authoritarianism" join the long list of perfectly useful words that have their actual meaning sucked out, leaving only a dry husk of "bad thing" where the definition used to be.

[Zurkerx]

SL I think you are just scared that the spirit of your constitution is being shat upon from great heights by the Republicans. and tbh? id be too.

I think we all are.

Undoubtedly so. Given the direction America (and the world in general) is trending, I do not have much faith the right things will be done.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

so?

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.

>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!

[San Lumen]

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.

>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!

That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.

Not really no. Not how this works.

yeah and the russian invasion of ukraine is just a "special military operation".

[Tarsonis]

then why defend it? just to be contrarian?

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining that you're wrong, and I'm doing that because I would prefer that "authoritarianism" join the long list of perfectly useful words that have their actual meaning sucked out, leaving only a dry husk of "bad thing" where the definition used to be.

Imprisoning people for disagreeing with Roe, fits right inside that Encyclopedia Britanica definition of Authoritarianism. Cults of personality like Russia and NK aren't the only forms of authoritarianism.

[Eahland]

>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!

That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.

Just like they'd never overturn Roe because it would be so unpopular.

[San Lumen]

Not really no. Not how this works.

yeah and the russian invasion of ukraine is just a "special military operation".

You seem to lack a basic understanding of the constitution and how the process works.

[Ifreann]

>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!

That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.

Incredible that you continue to have faith in judges who are dehumanising half of your country.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!

That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.

I think you’re too optimistic about people.

[Eahland]

That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.

Incredible that you continue to have faith in judges who are dehumanising half of your country.

Especially when they've made it pretty clear that Lumen's rights are on the chopping block next.