• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,203
Points
1,110
I noticed that in the noise, few of the politicians or the reporter comment that what the court is saying about Roe vs Wade is that it's not the courts job to make law and how society is to treat an issue like abortion is up to the politicians to make a well written law in it's regard that is constitutional. The best way forward is to say "Roe vs Wade" will be struck down by the courts in 2 years and Congress is to address the issue in that time".
The courts don’t have the power to curtail the legislature in that way. If Congress wants to pass new law to codify the issue at a federal level now, they can do that. The court cannot oblige them to wait for any period of time. I suspect we’ll see them try to do exactly this before midterms- best case they do get law through the house and the senate to protect abortion rights at a federal level. Worst case, they’re unable to, and it fuels their midterm campaign. Either way it’ll be ugly.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,859
Points
1,160
What I was trying to say is that the court will maintain the status quo for x period of time, so the government can get it's ass in gear and deal with the issue. If they don't, the status quo ends and things get messy. It's a not uncommon thing here, particularly in environmental law.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,318
Points
1,160
Very interesting and recent interview with Bill Barr, former Trump AG.

I sincerely hope I am not the only person who watched/listened until the end. Bill Barr iSight bout a lot of things, including the nature of the federal state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
I sincerely hope I am not the only person who watched/listened until the end. Bill Barr iSight bout a lot of things, including the nature of the federal state.
Glad QV posted that. I watched to the end Ted. Probably no surprise that I found myself pleasantly surprised.

My opinion on Trump is much the same as that expressed. I did not find him incompetent. Nor am I inclined to criticize him overly harshly for his temper. I am not sure that my temper would have held up over three years of the treatment that he faced. Did his temper do him, his party, his country or the world at large any good? No. I don't think the chip on his shoulder got him anyplace.

Except in this one particular. It developed a personality that could not stand down from a fight. And a lot of people, me included, found that appealing. Like Barr I am not persuaded of the Progressive Agenda. Woodrow Wilson's New York Agenda. Over a century in the making.

The US has supplanted, for most of that period all that came before.

France, Germany and Italy did themselves in.

But Washington took over from Westminster. Wall Street took over from the City of London and the Square Mile. But more importantly than either of those two exchanges, I think is the exchange of St Peter's Square for Times Square.

Times Square is surrounded by The New York Times, Rockefeller's NBC and its offspring ABC, as well as CBS, Rockefeller Plaza, Radio City Music Hall and, of course, Broadway. Hollywood is a branch plant operation Progressive New York. My sense is that the Media, in their desire to pin down The Truth are establishing themselves in the roles of the Clergy, Deaconry and Lay Orders of The Church. They tread a well worn path.

I happen to think that path leads to the opposite of liberalism.


Another thing I noted

Barr criticized Trump for "going outside" and hiring private sector advisors like Giulani to fight the skewing of the terms of the election.
Barr criticized Trump for not "going outside" and hiring private sector advisors to oppose the government's resident expert on disease - Fauci.

I guess you can't please all of the people all of the time. ;)
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,180
Points
1,040
What I was trying to say is that the court will maintain the status quo for x period of time, so the government can get it's ass in gear and deal with the issue. If they don't, the status quo ends and things get messy. It's a not uncommon thing here, particularly in environmental law.
I'm really not up on SCOTUS procedures but, just from memory, I don't get a sense that the court typically makes an adverse decision but then gives the legislature a grace period to bring a law into compliance. This is not uncommon up here. I'm not aware of any time constraints on issuing a ruling.

Regarding the Roe v Wade appeal (sorry, can't remember the name of the action), they are no doubt trying to damage control the leaked draft decision, no matter which way the actual ruling comes out.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,196
Points
1,010
I have read of instances of delay-to-fix-your-sh!t coming out of US courts, but not often, and no recollection that any of those instances originated in the USSC. It's beside the point; the law was made by the court itself, not any legislature, so there's nothing to be fixed. The court will either uphold or not; and if not upheld, it's over to legislatures to work with whatever room they have. There is no political advantage for Republicans to co-operate with Democrats preserving abortion federally.

Republicans are highly likely to win the House (moderately likely to win big), and likely to win the Senate. In no projection I've seen do they win 60+ in the Senate (this year). I am 99% skeptical Republicans would remove the legislative filibuster, so the question of overriding a presidential veto is approximately irrelevant (nothing objectionable to Democrats would get that far).

If the final outcome is not essentially the same as the leaked draft, I doubt any amount of carefully argued explanation will prevent a large number of people from concluding that justices can be effectively terrorized. That generalized outcome is much, much worse than the fallout from overturning R v W.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
959
Points
1,060
Never say never Brad. This is probably the craziest time I've ever seen in US politics. I'd like to see what odds bookmakers in Britain are giving for various US political events.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
So the power to permit or restrict abortion is at the state level now. Any bets on how crazy this will get now?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,196
Points
1,010
Thomas is often an outlier. Best not to pay attention to people "posting their Ls" worrying about what Thomas would do. I doubt those two are going anywhere.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,659
Points
1,090
Thomas is often an outlier. Best not to pay attention to people "posting their Ls" worrying about what Thomas would do. I doubt those two are going anywhere.
The same was said a few years ago about RvW and abortion. Yet there they are now.

Thomas’ telegraphing will certainly open the door to challenges on those particular things I am sure. And given the evangelical make up of the current SCOTUS those groups should rightfully worry.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
415
Points
880
Well, I certainly have an opinion on this, as do most of us here, and we are free to express that opinion.

But, when the decision has no application whatsoever for Canadians, there are some people who are NOT entitled to express their opinion. First among these is our Prime Minister. His job is to manage the relationship with the USA and their various constituent states. It is one of the most important part of his job. To do that, you don't take position on their internal affairs that are of no effect in Canada. Yet, he had to open his mouth and annoy a large portion of them in how he qualified the situation. To quote a recently elected American president "Will you just shut the hell up, man!"

BTW, I would love to see a "map" of the state legislations on this matter in five years superimposed on, not red or blue states, but states on the basis of their citizens percentage of church/religious attendance. As the late great American essayist Christopher Hitchens put it: "Religion Poisons Everything".
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,659
Points
1,090
And I do hope our current PM keeps his mouth shut. I also hope that the SoCons in the CPC also keep their mouths shut. Plenty of ammo to had to the LPC is they do.

I’m not optimistic about either…
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,196
Points
1,010
Evangelical? 6 of them are Catholic. Kagan is Jewish. Gorsuch is characterized as "mainline". I doubt Brown Jackson is going to be influenced by what Evangelicals want.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,436
Points
1,110
Well, I certainly have an opinion on this, as do most of us here, and we are free to express that opinion.

But, when the decision has no application whatsoever for Canadians, there are some people who are NOT entitled to express their opinion. First among these is our Prime Minister. His job is to manage the relationship with the USA and their various constituent states. It is one of the most important part of his job. To do that, you don't take position on their internal affairs that are of no effect in Canada. Yet, he had to open his mouth and annoy a large portion of them in how he qualified the situation. To quote a recently elected American president "Will you just shut the hell up, man!"

BTW, I would love to see a "map" of the state legislations on this matter in five years superimposed on, not red or blue states, but states on the basis of their citizens percentage of church/religious attendance. As the late great American essayist Christopher Hitchens put it: "Religion Poisons Everything".
I have an opinion as well but I will not post it here.

Are any of you old enough besides Mr. Campbell and I about what happened when Charles DeGaulle said "Vive Quebec Libre"? or whatever he said.

The outcry from Canadians was deafening. It appears Justin learned nothing from history except how to invoke emergency powers.
 
Last edited:
Top