Gorsuch has also been a staunch opponent of what he calls "executive overreach," a position that could appease many Republicans who criticized the Obama administration's use of executive orders to cut through congressional gridlock, while also reassuring Democrats worried about the ramifications of Trump's executive orders.
Executive bureaucracies, according to Gorsuch, "concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design."
"Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth," he wrote.
Then what does the prolife religious crowd have to be happy about?
Interpretation or personal agenda?
I suspect both. My understanding of the textual argument against Roe v. Wade, as it would be made by a pro-lifer, is that the decision was based on reading words into the fourteenth amendment that aren't there. Meanwhile, the tenth amendment states that any authority not explicitly assigned by the constitution to the federal government rests with the states (exactly the opposite of how it works in Canada). Following that logic, abortion would be a matter for individual states to legislate on. The ramifications of such a decision are obvious... so I imagine that's what they'd expect from the guy. I guess we'll see.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I just love the cognitive dissonance employed by a group of people who call their opponents "snowflakes" for their supposed sensitivity and political correctness, but then complain that said opponents should be nicer to them and not call them stupid or they'll elect a fascist.
I was wondering about the use of the term "snowflake". Doesn't getting upset at someone's political views enough to call them a snowflake, by definition make you a snowflake?
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
The saving grace for the supreme court right now is Chief Justice Roberts seems to make he takes the center stance and puts it on his shoulders to balance ideologies. I suspect he will continue to play that role.
In general, the justices move to the liberal side of things..some measures have Kennedy crossing over to leaning liberal in the past couple years for instance. Hell even Scalia was moving ever so slightly closer to a liberal stance (though he was still very very very much conservative leaning in his votes).
I suspect both. My understanding of the textual argument against Roe v. Wade, as it would be made by a pro-lifer, is that the decision was based on reading words into the fourteenth amendment that aren't there. Meanwhile, the tenth amendment states that any authority not explicitly assigned by the constitution to the federal government rests with the states (exactly the opposite of how it works in Canada). Following that logic, abortion would be a matter for individual states to legislate on. The ramifications of such a decision are obvious... so I imagine that's what they'd expect from the guy. I guess we'll see.
Are you saying that pro lifers are hoping the Supreme Court will rule that abortion should be facilitated on a state level? if it is even allowed or not? and they would be satisfied with that ruling?
Are you saying that pro lifers are hoping the Supreme Court will rule that abortion should be facilitated on a state level? if it is even allowed or not? and they would be satisfied with that ruling?
They've been pushing for that for decades. It's their crusade. They realize by now roe v wade would be almost impossible to overturn
I was wondering about the use of the term "snowflake". Doesn't getting upset at someone's political views enough to call them a snowflake, by definition make you a snowflake?
That's exactly what he's saying. Disagreeing and finding cognitive dissonance a bit ironic is not "getting upset"
Seems to me one side is accusing the other of being snowflakes because they believe in using terminology that's inclusive, all the while accusing those same people of hurting their feelings by calling them stupid
In remarks to a 2014 conference at the Vatican, Bannon warned his Christian audience, “We’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict.”
“We are in an outright war against jihadists, Islam, Islamic fascism,” Bannon continued. He likewise condemned “the immense secularization of the West” and the increasing secularism among millennials.
Seems to me one side is accusing the other of being snowflakes because they believe in using terminology that's inclusive, all the while accusing those same people of hurting their feelings by calling them stupid
If that's what it seems to you, then you've missed the point entirely. It's not a matter of objecting to inclusive language. That's not the basis of the objection. It's essentially that the language is, first of all, inherently exclusive - by emphasizing group classification as a crucially important attribute in peoples' character, you dig a trench between differently classified groups. It's tribalism, and tribalism does not lead to inclusion, even though it might feel good locally for roughly the same reasons that people enjoy being members of street gangs. Insert West Wing.
This divisiveness manifests itself basically in the same way religion does. You make the sorts of noises that are universally recognized as paying tribute to the belief structures that are favoured - be they accusing outsiders of islamophobia, or white supremacy, or deriding conservative commentators or politicians, or what have you, to demonstrate your fidelity to the righteous cause of social justice. If you make the wrong sorts of noises (or for some people, if you're not adequately extreme in demonstrating this piety; see "objecting to Steve Bannon's role in the white house while failing to call him a nazi makes you an apologist") you're some form of blasphemer. There are a number of forms - racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot. At this point, those are nuclear bombs; if society sees you as a bigot, you're an outcast, you're effectively human garbage. People will call for you to be fired from your job and shunned by the "good" people who follow the doctrine. So attributing those labels to people who aren't awful people - that's the language that's being objected to, not "hurt feelings". It's genuinely offensive to be accused of essentially being a KKK member when you don't consciously harbour any racist views or attitudes. Further explanation of the myriad potential problems with this trend can be found here: https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/20/...gressive-left/
For anyone reading this post, I'm not going to debate the merits of that argument for what feels like the ten thousandth time. Seriously. I have no interest in doing so today. But please, at least acknowledge that that is the position, that is the argument being made. The argument is not, in any way, that inclusiveness is somehow bad. Even if you don't share the concerns fully (or at all), at least try to understand what those concerns actually are.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 02-01-2017 at 09:27 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Senate Committee approves Sessions as Attorney General. Franken with a fiery speech. Cruz shows up late and looks even creepier than usual, then sits down and dicks around with his phone, taking this all very seriously.
After approval is given, an old lady is yanked out of the room by a cop because she shouted something along the lines of "we need someone to protect the voters", which is pretty controversial stuff. Can't be saying that!
This is the 5th missile test that supposedly has contravened a UN resolution that Iran not use or test ballistic missiles that can possibly carry a nuclear payload. The UN hasn't really done anything.
So are we looking at a Trio of Evil?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
