I don't know how common ground can be found when there seems to be total exclusion of honesty and integrity in the debate. I deed reasonable debate is disallowed. Anyone who attempts to apply reason is demonized. How can we find common ground with when we declare anyone who dares question as evil? Yet that is exactly what's happened.
We can't even phrase the debate on anything truthful. Even the activist, revisionist champion of all things good for women, justice Ginsberg, in her analysis of RvW made it clear it is not abut the rights of women, or even about abortion, but mostly about protecting doctors and empowering federal domination of states. Her analysis is fascinating and she notes that as a ruling RvW is very weak and an example of what the court should avoid. She also notes that if the loud mouth members of congress shouting about it REALLY cared about women's rights, the would propose and debate legislation to protect specific rights and has not. Few would categorize RBG as anti-female or conservative.
The other key point in RvW which fails scrutiny but is excluded from debate is that it declares the male involved in conception has no rights with respect to the conceived. This was a primary point of the original case as the father wished to assert some input into the decision. The court said "no". Don't dare raise this question today.
Ultimately the question - NOT answered by the court in RvW - is when the conceived becomes subject to rights and equal protection of the law. While once it was allowed to discuss this it is now blocked.
Even the premise of this controversy is dishonest. The "leaked decision" is being dishonestly characterized by all sides, and any factual recount is shouted down.
We can never have a constructive conversation until we realize that the two sides have completely different underlying assumptions about how the world works. Until we address those underlying assumptions we will always just be shouting unconvincing things at each other.
If we were to have an honest, sincere conversation, I think we'd find some common ground. At least with respect to law. I am not saying it would be an easy conversation. Not necessarily converge, but we might better understand each other.
But that conversation is not allowed. And I have come to realize that the current "crisis" over RvW is another purely fabricated crisis and the goal is deepening divides, to ignite hatred and fear, all with the purpose of "saving" the mid-term elections for the "blue wave" that seems so unlikely in the face of real economic hardship brought directly by the absurd energy and transportation policy changes, the logical consequences of COVID extremes, and the radical expansion of federal spending that is devaluing the currency. Much like the picture in 2019, the current conditions are causing even the faithful to question their loyalty to The Party, especially those who still value self sufficiency (which is a lot).
Abortion is a divisive, emotional topic. A perfect distraction. A perfect "game changer". Pay no attention to the man behind the current. Focus on the flames.
I realized that this "leak" is not random nor is the timing. The powder has been packed over the last year or two and this "leak" is the igniter setting off an explosion of division and hate. The NY legislature passing a law that seems (and is characterized by "their" media as such) to support post-term abortion (after birth). Predictably the reaction is polarizing and sometimes extreme. The powder is packed, RvW is the igniter and the "leak" closes the circuit. How dare TRUMP's court overrule the foundation of women's rights!
Non of this is about the decision itself. I wish folks (all of y'all) would read RBG's analysis and comments on RvW. While not my favorite justice of all time, in this analysis she raises a lot of interesting points and her conclusions are it is a bad decision, weak legally and not protective of women's rights.
For that matter I'd like folks to read the leaked document and Robert's statements. His explanation makes far more sense given his record. I doubt the court would have taken up a direct challenge to RvW under Roberts (who has always found a way to avoid that). Not until now, when they may be forced. While justice Thomas says he can not be intimidated or bullied, I am not so confident this is true of the court as a whole (or of Thomas when the safety of his family is threatened for real).
I don't know how common ground can be found when there seems to be total exclusion of honesty and integrity in the debate. I deed reasonable debate is disallowed. Anyone who attempts to apply reason is demonized. How can we find common ground with when we declare anyone who dares question as evil? Yet that is exactly what's happened.
We can't even phrase the debate on anything truthful. Even the activist, revisionist champion of all things good for women, justice Ginsberg, in her analysis of RvW made it clear it is not abut the rights of women, or even about abortion, but mostly about protecting doctors and empowering federal domination of states. Her analysis is fascinating and she notes that as a ruling RvW is very weak and an example of what the court should avoid. She also notes that if the loud mouth members of congress shouting about it REALLY cared about women's rights, the would propose and debate legislation to protect specific rights and has not. Few would categorize RBG as anti-female or conservative.
The other key point in RvW which fails scrutiny but is excluded from debate is that it declares the male involved in conception has no rights with respect to the conceived. This was a primary point of the original case as the father wished to assert some input into the decision. The court said "no". Don't dare raise this question today.
Ultimately the question - NOT answered by the court in RvW - is when the conceived becomes subject to rights and equal protection of the law. While once it was allowed to discuss this it is now blocked.
Even the premise of this controversy is dishonest. The "leaked decision" is being dishonestly characterized by all sides, and any factual recount is shouted down.
We can never have a constructive conversation until we realize that the two sides have completely different underlying assumptions about how the world works. Until we address those underlying assumptions we will always just be shouting unconvincing things at each other.
If we were to have an honest, sincere conversation, I think we'd find some common ground. At least with respect to law. I am not saying it would be an easy conversation. Not necessarily converge, but we might better understand each other.
But that conversation is not allowed. And I have come to realize that the current "crisis" over RvW is another purely fabricated crisis and the goal is deepening divides, to ignite hatred and fear, all with the purpose of "saving" the mid-term elections for the "blue wave" that seems so unlikely in the face of real economic hardship brought directly by the absurd energy and transportation policy changes, the logical consequences of COVID extremes, and the radical expansion of federal spending that is devaluing the currency. Much like the picture in 2019, the current conditions are causing even the faithful to question their loyalty to The Party, especially those who still value self sufficiency (which is a lot).
Abortion is a divisive, emotional topic. A perfect distraction. A perfect "game changer". Pay no attention to the man behind the current. Focus on the flames.
I realized that this "leak" is not random nor is the timing. The powder has been packed over the last year or two and this "leak" is the igniter setting off an explosion of division and hate. The NY legislature passing a law that seems (and is characterized by "their" media as such) to support post-term abortion (after birth). Predictably the reaction is polarizing and sometimes extreme. The powder is packed, RvW is the igniter and the "leak" closes the circuit. How dare TRUMP's court overrule the foundation of women's rights!
Non of this is about the decision itself. I wish folks (all of y'all) would read RBG's analysis and comments on RvW. While not my favorite justice of all time, in this analysis she raises a lot of interesting points and her conclusions are it is a bad decision, weak legally and not protective of women's rights.
For that matter I'd like folks to read the leaked document and Robert's statements. His explanation makes far more sense given his record. I doubt the court would have taken up a direct challenge to RvW under Roberts (who has always found a way to avoid that). Not until now, when they may be forced. While justice Thomas says he can not be intimidated or bullied, I am not so confident this is true of the court as a whole (or of Thomas when the safety of his family is threatened for real).
It is all about November, kids.