joe biden

189101113

Comments

  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,500
    Do they believe in the original constitution or are the 33 amendments also original?
    rjsterry said:

    The more I read about the so-called 'originalists' and their deliberations the more absurd they seem to believe that a bunch of jumped up plantation owners had some sort of quasi-divine insight into how to run a country for any and all eventualities. It's like trying to determine how to wire a plug by consulting the Bible.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706
    monkimark said:

    Do they believe in the original constitution or are the 33 amendments also original?

    Well, we know that they like the second amendment so presumably time stopped sometime between then and the 33rd.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    They only like the amendments that suit them.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,500
    To be fair, you can't follow them all - at least one of them repeals a previous amendment.
    When you're making amendments to amend previous amendments, you ought to realise that the constitution isn't exactly infallible.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706
    monkimark said:

    To be fair, you can't follow them all - at least one of them repeals a previous amendment.
    When you're making amendments to amend previous amendments, you ought to realise that the constitution isn't exactly infallible.

    Precisely. It is a fluid document that reflects the change in time.
    As it should be.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,551
    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    edited May 2022

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    I think it's mainly we're of the view it's not really the state's responsibility to decide what people can or can't do with their own bodies.

    it's not so much a constitutional question as it is focused on the outcome which is, if this happens, 36 million women no longer have access to legal abortions.

    Particularly challenging as all the evidence suggests legality of abortions does not change the number of abortions, it just changes the mortality rate of women.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,201

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    ...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,551

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    ...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.
    That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,435

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    ...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.
    That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.
    I think the references to the Constitution stemmed from that being used as the basis for this reported Supreme Court decision.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,594
    edited May 2022

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    ...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.
    That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.
    Not moaning about a Constitution: mocking the stupidity of thinking that a set of rules devised in a particular situation are magically applicable to any and all future situations. Also the elevation of the drafters of those rules to demi-gods. See also Magna Carta bores.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,551
    rjsterry said:

    I don't understand the arguments here. It's the same as the ECJ deciding whether the EU has the right to allow abortion in Poland.

    ...in 1973, then reaffirming that decision several times, then deciding almost 50 years later that all those cases were wrongly decided. Justified by an opinion that makes no sense.
    That view makes sense. Moaning about a constitution doesn't to me.
    Not moaning about a Constitution: mocking the stupidity of thinking that a set of rules devised in a particular situation are magically applicable to any and all future situations. Also the elevation of the drafters of those rules to demi-gods. See also Magna Carta bores.
    That's broadly one of the dissenting views on Roe vs Wade.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,828
    Interesting takes on Biden having found (and returned) classified docs he'd mistakenly taken away. Garland has already appointed a special counsel, mirroring the one appointed for Trump and his (apparently) wilful removal and retention and reticence about returning them.

    Certainly gives some ammo to the Trumpophiles, though at least having two special counsels means that the Trumpo's won't be able to claim Biden's being treated differently, and could actually make it easier to throw the book at Trump, if the SC deems him to have broken laws.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706
    They used to be called dynasties. Just a new label.
    May be more prevalent or simply more reported but it's not really new.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,663
    Nepotism is nothing new. I raise you King Brian. And his befores and afters.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A myth?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    pblakeney said:

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A myth?
    nah, social mobility was a real thing then
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,304

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A white picket fence?


    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,594

    pblakeney said:

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A myth?
    nah, social mobility was a real thing then
    When? The place was invented by the landed gentry.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    rjsterry said:

    pblakeney said:

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A myth?
    nah, social mobility was a real thing then
    When? The place was invented by the landed gentry.
    40s-80/90s
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,594
    Quite a small window. I guess it's a self-reinforcing idea as well.

    Effort and merit is rewarded > I'm being rewarded so I must be brilliant.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,894
    Did that period also see more social mobility in the UK?

    I wonder whether the societal and technological changes between the 40s and 90s were more conducive to social mobility.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,706
    The American dream in action,


    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    Jezyboy said:

    Did that period also see more social mobility in the UK?

    I wonder whether the societal and technological changes between the 40s and 90s were more conducive to social mobility.

    Nowhere near the same
  • pblakeney said:

    christ alive, what was the american dream, guys?

    A myth?
    nah, social mobility was a real thing then
    No, myth was the correct answer. The USA is a very unequal society but people have been brainwashed
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    USA has baked inequality into the schooling system in a way the UK Tories have wet dreams about.