Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
I would argue Dobbs ignored the Constitution. Although really it ignored state decisis that a fundamental right of privacy exists in the constitution. I would also argue citizens United ignored the Constitution when claiming a corporation has the same first amendment rights as real people. Again, I think they really just ignored the concept of the individual having the rights found in our bill of rights, not fictious persons. Bush v Gore, they ignored all normal process.
Dobbs ignored established precedent for sure, but I don't think it directly ignored the constitution like such a decision I'm suggesting would.
You probably have the winning argument from a strict reading and the lack of a privacy right in the constitution. But from the point of view that there is a right to privacy inherent to the constitution and amendments that existed for 55 years through four different chief justices, the Dobbs decision by the current SC with its new three stooges was pretty brazen.
You probably have the winning argument from a strict reading and the lack of a privacy right in the constitution. But from the point of view that there is a right to privacy inherent to the constitution and amendments that existed for 55 years through four different chief justices, the Dobbs decision by the current SC with its new three stooges was pretty brazen.
Absolutely no argument there.
Even if you want to assume that a right to privacy exists (which seems reasonable) the logic of tying that in with a right to kill your kid seems pretty dubious.
Even if you want to assume that a right to privacy exists (which seems reasonable) the logic of tying that in with a right to kill your kid seems pretty dubious.
The Dobbs decision and RvW were both actually about the right to privacy. The fundamental idea was that no one had to tell the government if you had an abortion. The information was private. Outlawing abortion necessarily guts this right to privacy.
And abortions don't kill kids. Abortions terminate pregnancies (which can sometimes end the life of an embryo or fetus, definitely not a "kid").
Lockbox, You have it backwards. Dobbs eliminated your right to privacy in order to stop abortion.
The 4th amendment does not and never did guarantee a right to privacy. It only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Besides the fact that reasonable searches and seizures are not prohibited by this amendment, it only deals with physical things, not information.
The 4th amendment does not and never did guarantee a right to privacy. It only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Besides the fact that reasonable searches and seizures are not prohibited by this amendment, it only deals with physical things, not information.
No part of the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. It was discovered in its "pnenumbra"-- of which I'm pretty sure the 4th was doing some work.
No part of the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. It was discovered in its "pnenumbra"-- of which I'm pretty sure the 4th was doing some work.
You are basically reinforcing the point I was making in this post:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
I agree with you. However, the Dobbs decision did disregard well established precedent on this topic, which is nearly as egregious.
You are basically reinforcing the point I was making in this post:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
I agree with you. However, the Dobbs decision did disregard well established precedent on this topic, which is nearly as egregious.
define egregious. if the court invented a completely made up "right" after almost 200 years of the nation existing without that rifht, how is it "egregious" to correct that insanity 50 years later?
The Dobbs decision and RvW were both actually about the right to privacy. The fundamental idea was that no one had to tell the government if you had an abortion. The information was private. Outlawing abortion necessarily guts this right to privacy.
And abortions don't kill kids. Abortions terminate pregnancies (which can sometimes end the life of an embryo or fetus, definitely not a "kid").
even if a right to privacy existed in the constitution, a right to abortion doesn't follow from it at all and has nothing to do with it.
proof? Switzerland which has an explicit right to privacy in the constitution that doesn't guarantee a right to abortion in any way or form.
privacy doesn't mean you can abort.
abortion is about if/when the fetus becomes an entity deserving of protection. that has nothing to do with privacy.
same as you can have privacy in your home but you can't mutilate your 3 old kid
And abortions don't kill kids. Abortions terminate pregnancies (which can sometimes end the life of an embryo or fetus, definitely not a "kid").
if your tribe, your people, your friends, your political allies, the only people who think you are smart can say that men can get pregnant... then lucky box can call fetuses kids.
lol 3 posts responding only to me and ignoring everyone else
but still...
Thank goodness Trump won the election. God bless America.
even if a right to privacy existed in the constitution, a right to abortion doesn't follow from it at all and has nothing to do with it.
proof? Switzerland which has an explicit right to privacy in the constitution that doesn't guarantee a right to abortion in any way or form.
privacy doesn't mean you can abort.
abortion is about if/when the fetus becomes an entity deserving of protection. that has nothing to do with privacy.
same as you can have privacy in your home but you can't mutilate your 3 ol
Not sure what you mean but abortion is legal in Switzerland.
Many country got freedoms that others don’t .
Doesn’t mean much .
U.S. got free speech rights for corporations at a stupid level .
Doesn’t mean it’s ok .
