Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

Voters in the certain US states don’t want legalised abortion laws. 

I fundamentally do not agree with them but why should their democratic wishes be overruled? The Supreme Court ruling does not make a judgement either way, it only gives states the power to enact laws as their voters see fit.

Surely the battle is to convince voters in those states to willingly allow abortion, not to over rule their wishes and make them do what the other states do against their (nutty) voters wishes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Voters in the certain US states don’t want legalised abortion laws. 

I fundamentally do not agree with them but why should their democratic wishes be overruled? The Supreme Court ruling does not make a judgement either way, it only gives states the power to enact laws as their voters see fit.

Surely the battle is to convince voters in those states to willingly allow abortion, not to over rule their wishes and make them do what the other states do against their (nutty) voters wishes. 

I think that's putting a lot of misplaced faith in voters' willingness to have their minds changed or moderated once they've staked their flag on a particular position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Voters in the certain US states don’t want legalised abortion laws. 

I fundamentally do not agree with them but why should their democratic wishes be overruled? The Supreme Court ruling does not make a judgement either way, it only gives states the power to enact laws as their voters see fit.

Surely the battle is to convince voters in those states to willingly allow abortion, not to over rule their wishes and make them do what the other states do against their (nutty) voters wishes. 

Based on that logic, do you believe contraception, gay and mixed race marriage and same sex sex to be state made decisions too? Because as written by Clarence Thomas, this ruling sets precedent for those too. 

Edited by StefanAVFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also both pence (2024 candidate) and McCarthy (head of the GOP in the house) have said this is the first step in outlawing it completely. It’s not entirely in good faith to claim this is fine be sure it’s passing it to states to decide. It’s clearly a coup to enforce it at the federal level 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Based on that logic, do you believe contraception, gay marriage and same sex sex to be state made decisions too? Because as written by Clarence Thomas, this ruling sets precedent for those too. 

It’s just a basic question of democracy isn’t it. You either allow people to vote for things they believe are important to them (whether you personally agree or disagree) or you over rule them and tell them you know better and the voters should just stay quiet put up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

It’s just a basic question of democracy isn’t it. You either allow people to vote for things they believe are important to them (whether you personally agree or disagree) or you over rule them and tell them you know better and the voters should just stay quiet put up with it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s just a basic question of democracy isn’t it. You either allow people to vote for things they believe are important to them (whether you personally agree or disagree) or you over rule them and tell them you know better and the voters should just stay quiet put up with it.

Why have elections at all? Rule by referendum. Sounds like a good plan in your utopia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Also both pence (2024 candidate) and McCarthy (head of the GOP in the house) have said this is the first step in outlawing it completely. It’s not entirely in good faith to claim this is fine be sure it’s passing it to states to decide. It’s clearly a coup to enforce it at the federal level 

Considering how much money these words removed put into fighting Al Qaeda and Isis, they sure want to live in a backwords theocratic hellhole. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s just a basic question of democracy isn’t it. You either allow people to vote for things they believe are important to them (whether you personally agree or disagree) or you over rule them and tell them you know better and the voters should just stay quiet put up with it.

You say this as if there's no inherent value behind certain legal, ethical and social principles, such as rights to birth control and a same-sex relationship, and that ultimately these concepts are all just fads being thrown about by the prevailing wind. Should legislators just shrug if the 'will of the people' ends up damaging a lot of people's lives?

Edited by His Name Is Death
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Why have elections at all? Rule by referendum. Sounds like a good plan in your utopia. 

As an interesting aside, I believe that is what the Swiss do.

Getting back on topic though, US states do have elections for a representative state democracy. If the voters of a state believe in something and vote in a specific government representatives to enact that, but are then told they are not allowed to do it because other states have told them they are not allowed to, is that democratic?

If we take another example.

If a region like Scotland wants to stay in the EU and Scotland’s voters all vote passionately on that basis, but are forced to leave the EU because a majority of voters in other states outside of Scotland voted to take them out, is that democratic?

If voters in Missouri passionately believe in criminalising abortion but are forced to legalise it because a majority of voters in other states have told them they have to, is that democratic?

At what point do we draw the line on what is considered ‘democratic’? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the last few days 'Murica has made it lawful to walk around a hugely popular metropolitan area with a concealed firearm and then go on to remove/strip rights from women. Way to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mjmooney said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." 

"Although we may be wrong and might need to make amendments quite often down the line so leave some blank pages..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most states you can legally buy weed (which I’m all for) but soon you won’t be able to have an abortion? Madness. 
And I’m sure I read somewhere that the proposed punishments for having a termination were harsher than those for rape. You could get a ridiculous situation where some poor girl is made pregnant, finds a way to get rid and she’ll be in prison longer than her rapist. Crazy, crazy country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

"Although we may be wrong and might need to make amendments quite often down the line so leave some blank pages..."

But some amendments are sacrosanct!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â