A Deeply Fractured US

[QV]

I know it may be hard for some people to swallow, but there is a reason the USA has become the most dominant superpower in the history of human civilization... and the founding documents are where it all started.

Perhaps many should view the USA with a little less derision.

 

[mariomike]

You may have missed that down here our Republic is One Nation Under God…

As General Dwight D. Eisenhower said to his soldiers, sailors and airmen ( including Canadian ).

Good luck! And let us all beseech blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The US doesn't have separation of church and state; it just has the First Amendment (which is not the same thing, although a great many people have trouble understanding that).

 

[KevinB]

You're not trying to say that the right to freedom of speech in US (or any other right for that matter) is absolute.

Rights beget responsibilities, and rights end when they infringe others rights.

You can’t shout Fire in a crowded theatre (well you can, but it’s not protected under free speech).

 

[Navy_Pete]

The one that will be interesting to see go through the courts is the Satanic Temples challenge of the abortion bans, on the basis that it's part of their religious rights (which includes full bodily autonomy).

Find it interesting that the US has now overturned abortion, while the same parties are preaching self-determination and small government, and simultaneously having ludicrous medical costs for even uncomplicated births, fairly pathetic paternity leave entitlement and similar issues affecting kids and propective parents who aren't rich. If your support for the sanctity of life stops after birth, you aren't really 'pro-life'.

Think the massive gerrymandering is having a disproportionate impact on who is in power versus reflecting the will of the voters, so lots of pressure points building up. Really don't see this ending well.

Having said all that, relying on a court ruling for 50 odd years instead of just making it law was also stupid, especially when different wings of the Republicans have been explicitly and openly planning on stacking the judiciary with their own flavour of conservative judges for the last 20 years to get things like this done. Find it really weird that the judges, prosecutors, sherriffs etc that are all an integral part of the legal system are elected officials, where I have no idea what political parties any of our judges are affiliated with.

 

[Good2Golf]

If your support for the sanctity of life stops after birth, you aren't really 'pro-life'.

The culture will have to walk the walk (after birth), not just talk the talk.

 

[OldSolduer]

Rights beget responsibilities, and rights end when they infringe others rights.

That word I highlighted hasn't been used very often in a number of years.

Very few know what responsibility is. North America has a culture of "its not my fault" embedded and it needs to be rooted out.

 

[mariomike]

Think the massive gerrymandering is having a disproportionate impact on who is in power versus reflecting the will of the voters, so lots of pressure points building up.

Hopefully there will be no violence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Having said all that, relying on a court ruling for 50 odd years instead of just making it law was also stupid

It's what you do when persuading a consistent majority is too much work.

 

[lenaitch]

Having said all that, relying on a court ruling for 50 odd years instead of just making it law was also stupid, especially when different wings of the Republicans have been explicitly and openly planning on stacking the judiciary with their own flavour of conservative judges for the last 20 years to get things like this done. Find it really weird that the judges, prosecutors, sherriffs etc that are all an integral part of the legal system are elected officials, where I have no idea what political parties any of our judges are affiliated with.

Given the structure of the US Constitution and the division of the federal and state powers, how do you suppose "a law" could happen? The federal government didn't make abortion legal; the SCOTUS said the ability to have and perform the procedure was protected from interference from a State by the Constitution, and then in didn't.

I'm certainly anything but a constitutional expert but I don't see it within the enumerated federal powers under Article 1 to 'making it law', and I certainly don't see 50 states agreeing to expanded its authority to do so.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The culture will have to walk the walk (after birth), not just talk the talk.

Well, as long as this is the talk from some of the more extreme people of the group that's happy with the latest SCOTUS decision ...

... I, too, am interested to see what kind of walk states putting more restrictions on abortions walk.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I certainly don't see 50 states agreeing to expanded its authority to do so.

Who knows what might have happened if states had been left to try their own regulations and voters had been left to check them? What's certain is that the Democratic strategy of relying on court decisions and executive authority is fragile to start with and is further weakened by their antagonism towards much of the Constitution and towards any cherished institution on any particular day on which it doesn't serve their ends. That motivates conservatives, some of whom tilt at windmills and some of whom quietly do things like work on the "convention of states".

 

[KevinB]

There is no real executive authority here, outside what is given by Congress.
Nothing gives the President authority for Executive Orders.

The Presidents job is to sign bills into law.
The theory behind EO’s is that they are just streamlining the system, but that only works if it was something that Congress and the Senate would support.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is executive authority, if Congress doesn't challenge it and no-one else finds standing to take it to courts. But that's part of what makes it fragile (although it's possible for courts to find reasons to prevent a prior EO from being vacated by a subsequent EO). EO can be easily overturned.

To judge by action and rhetoric, Democrats are in a hurry, too impatient to do the years-long work of moving public opinion in order to effect sufficient majorities to pass legislation, and thoroughly transactional in their respect for institutions - decision they like, the institution is sacrosanct; decision they don't like, the institution is illegitimate.

 

[KevinB]

There is executive authority, if Congress doesn't challenge it and no-one else finds standing to take it to courts. But that's part of what makes it fragile (although it's possible for courts to find reasons to prevent a prior EO from being vacated by a subsequent EO). EO can be easily overturned.

To judge by action and rhetoric, Democrats are in a hurry, too impatient to do the years-long work of moving public opinion in order to effect sufficient majorities to pass legislation, and thoroughly transactional in their respect for institutions - decision they like, the institution is sacrosanct; decision they don't like, the institution is illegitimate.

I'd argue it is an illusion of Executive Authority - that has been illegitimately propped up by both sides usage of it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, as it turned out, RvW was an illusion of "settled law".

 

[KevinB]

Well, as it turned out, RvW was an illusion of "settled law".

Well several of the then presiding USSC justices and Jane Wade later admitted she wished the case hadn’t gone that way and regretted her decision.

I don’t think anyone on either side of the Abortion issue down here thought it was truly settled, in the same way that most folks on the gun issue WRT the NFA feel that US v. Miller settled that issue either.

Anything that is a core belief will have stringent supporters on either side - will never be settled cleanly, or with finality.

I’m Pro-Life, but I know that simply having states outlaw abortion isn’t a solution. There needs to be educational efforts, and financial and emotional support services for families and single mother (and mothers to be).

The biggest hurdles are that most social conservatives are also financially conservative, and those policies together aren’t supportive of each other in the anti-abortion arena.
While I am a financial conservative, I’m enough of a realist to know that it’s irresponsible and somewhat immoral to simply outlaw abortions without providing a support system that provides a means for low income parent to survive, and grow, and provide the child with a positive home life.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The one that will be interesting to see go through the courts is the Satanic Temples challenge of the abortion bans, on the basis that it's part of their religious rights (which includes full bodily autonomy).

Find it interesting that the US has now overturned abortion, while the same parties are preaching self-determination and small government, and simultaneously having ludicrous medical costs for even uncomplicated births, fairly pathetic paternity leave entitlement and similar issues affecting kids and propective parents who aren't rich. If your support for the sanctity of life stops after birth, you aren't really 'pro-life'.

Think the massive gerrymandering is having a disproportionate impact on who is in power versus reflecting the will of the voters, so lots of pressure points building up. Really don't see this ending well.

Having said all that, relying on a court ruling for 50 odd years instead of just making it law was also stupid, especially when different wings of the Republicans have been explicitly and openly planning on stacking the judiciary with their own flavour of conservative judges for the last 20 years to get things like this done. Find it really weird that the judges, prosecutors, sherriffs etc that are all an integral part of the legal system are elected officials, where I have no idea what political parties any of our judges are affiliated with.

The SCOTUS did not overturn abortion nor did the US. Abortions are still available, depending on State criteria. Some states aren't fond of abortion used as birth control.

SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they interpret them and make sure they are legal. Politicians make laws.

What massive gerrymandering? Examples please. Is it possible biden is just doing it backwards? Flying and bussing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens all over the states, in the dead of night, hoping when they get the vote, they'll vote democrat. It's easier than trying to shift district boundaries.

Each party stacks their ranks whenever in power. Whether legally or not. Whether it be AG, DA, judges, law enforcement or prosecutors. Even when voted on, there is fuckery. George Soros is financing all the lenient AG and DA in the US. Those blue state AG's getting recalled and fired are soros stooges. He is paying for these AG's to put dangerous criminals back on the street or not prosecuting them at all. It's not a one party thing. It is normal everyday practice, in politics, all around the world. You are likely just surprised. It used to be all hush hush, bribes, extortion. Now they don't care. They are now just brazenly flaunting it in your face for all to see.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The recent Florida re-districting is a good example; the govenor directly intervened and essentially forced the legislators to change the districts. That gave the Republicans an advantage in 20 of the 28 districts, vice the previous 16. It also specifically diminished the voting power of black voters compared to the status quo.

The US invented gerrymandering, and it happens on both sides, but that is a fairly brazen example.

Similarly lots of other examples of voter interference by doing things like taking away options for people to vote safely during the pandemic, trying to make voting by mail harder, and also specifically requiring additional ID to vote to combat non-existant fraud while knowing that will disproportionately impact POC voters.

Comparing the insanity of the state by election groups and the total lack of standards on the voting methods pretty glad we have a fairly non-partisan, federally run setup with Elections Canada.

But sure, it's all Soros. It's too bad there aren't any Republican billionaires doing the same thing to counteract him... cough Kock brothers, Murdoch cough... and that a bunch of them didn't give a lot of Republican legislators large donations to try and overturn the election results. C'mon.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The US has always struggled with voting issues. Having 11 million illegals many who can sort of legally vote as they have ID is a big issue. The Democrats have supported illegal migration to provide cheap labour for their friends in California and to stack the polls. Trump should have come out with an amnesty plan where illegals in the country for a long time with no major offences can apply for PR/Citizenship and work their way to full citizenship. Not a popular thing for a lot of Republicans, but it would solve a lot of the systemic issues and undercut Democrat strategy. At the same time secure the border and fix the legal immigration system and the temp worker program.