Page 60 of 60 [ 956 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 67,988
Location: Chez Quis

25 Jul 2022, 12:35 am

I'm interested in it as a work of Literature or Philosophy, but I'm face blind and I have Aphantasia (I can't picture stories when I'm reading). There are way too many characters for me to keep track of when I can't picture faces or places, and it's such a complicated plot. I was never led to believe that all the little details matter anyway. It's always been "OK, so how can we be good people and help others?" rather than "This angel said he wanted to do a THING with a virgin, and she would conceive a baby without any harm".



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Jul 2022, 6:18 am

The Bible is a work which covers basically all the ancient literary genres….plus is a prime example of a chronicle-type historical work rather in the vein of Roman historical works, or the epics of various ethnic groups of that time.

There wasn’t much “policing” of scholarship in those days.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,165
Location: Hell

25 Jul 2022, 8:03 am

Quote:
The Bible is a work which covers basically all the ancient literary genres….plus is a prime example of a chronicle-type historical work rather in the vein of Roman historical works, or the epics of various ethnic groups of that time.

There wasn’t much “policing” of scholarship in those days.


That’s true. I see the Bible as a collection of books of varying genres rather than a single book with a single plot. I dislike some books more than others but find most of them less entertaining than most of the other ancient works I’ve read.

My lack of belief is mostly related to a lack of evidence.

I find so much of the Bible objectionable that following the good bits feels a bit like cherry-picking to me. Following Jesus is okay, but even he said problematic stuff - if one is to believe that he said what the Bible writers said he did.

On the other hand, I do realize that beliefs and faith are more complex than that. I’m just speaking from my own personal position.

Going by the text itself, I think the Bible encourages intolerance much more than tolerance although specific passages are nice. As a holy book and base for religious belief, I would expect more.

I think reading a variety of literary and philosophical works could help people develop their own moral code. Learning more about the human condition could, perhaps, help people learn how to empathize with others over issues related to bodily autonomy for instance.


_________________
“We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake...by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us even in our soundest sleep.”
Walden


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,246
Location: Long Island, New York

26 Jul 2022, 8:19 pm

The inside story of how John Roberts failed to save abortion rights

Quote:
Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied fellow conservatives to save the constitutional right to abortion down to the bitter end, but May's unprecedented leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade made the effort all but impossible, multiple sources familiar with negotiations told CNN.

It appears unlikely that Roberts' best prospect -- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- was ever close to switching his earlier vote, despite Roberts' attempts that continued through the final weeks of the session.

New details obtained by CNN provide insight into the high-stakes internal abortion-rights drama that intensified in late April when justices first learned the draft opinion would soon be published. Serious conflicts over the fate of the 1973 Roe were then accompanied by tensions over an investigation into the source of the leak that included obtaining cell phone data from law clerks and some permanent court employees.

In the past, Roberts himself has switched his vote, or persuaded others to do so, toward middle-ground, institutionalist outcomes, such as saving the Affordable Care Act. It's a pattern that has generated suspicion among some right-wing justices and conservatives outside the court.

Multiple sources told CNN that Roberts' overtures this spring, particularly to Kavanaugh, raised fears among conservatives and hope among liberals that the chief could change the outcome in the most closely watched case in decades. Once the draft was published by Politico, conservatives pressed their colleagues to try to hasten release of the final decision, lest anything suddenly threaten their majority.

Roberts' persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play. He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.

The two men have known each other since the early 1990s when they both worked in the George H.W. Bush administration. Roberts, who is 67 and 10 years older than Kavanaugh, was a deputy US solicitor general at the time, and Kavanaugh, a new attorney.

They share similar Roman Catholic roots, prep school backgrounds and Ivy League educations (Roberts, Harvard; Kavanaugh, Yale). They now live so close to each other in Maryland that abortion rights protesters sometimes go to both homes on the same evening.

t has unsettled the court in its own way, as the 5-4 ruling represented a startling departure from a half century of precedent.

The final decision flouted the court's traditional adherence to judicial restraint and precedent. Polls show public approval of the court falling significantly, as the decision has been regarded as a product of politics rather than neutral decision-making.

Roberts' efforts directed toward Kavanaugh and to a lesser extent newest conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett were anticipated. Some anti-abortion advocates and conservative movement figures had feared that Roberts would sway either Kavanaugh or Barrett from the draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that was an all-out rejection of Roe and women's privacy rights.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has previously obtained inside information about conservative votes, had published an editorial on April 26 warning that Roberts, presumed to be working to save part of Roe, "may be trying to turn another Justice now."
Roberts indeed was trying, according to CNN's sources who also revealed that by the end of that April week the justices discovered that the news organization Politico had obtained Alito's first draft of the Dobbs ruling from February.
Roberts and his colleagues spent a few anxious days quietly awaiting publication of the document, stretching through the afternoon of May 2, when all nine were together for a live-streamed memorial at the court for the late Justice John Paul Stevens. Politico first published its story about the draft that night at 8:32 p.m.

Roberts launched an investigation into who might be behind "this betrayal of the confidences of the Court." He vowed that court's work "will not be affected in any way."

But, of course, it was, most notably in diminishing whatever chance he had to dislodge the five-justice bloc set to overturn Roe. The aggressive leak investigation worsened the existing strains among the justices, their law clerks and other employees in the nine chambers.

Friction among all intensified as protests began, fencing and barricades were erected around the court, and some usual end-of-session lunches and parties were dropped.

Aggravating everything and presenting the greatest consequence for all Americans was the emerging force of the court's right-wing supermajority, which, aside from abortion rights, included Roberts.

The 6-3 court ruled boldly to enhance gun rights, favor religious conservatives, and diminish regulatory authority over the environment.
Roberts helped steer several of those rulings. For the court's remaining three liberals, who held out some hope that the chief justice could moderate fellow conservatives on abortion rights, it was defeat all around.

The Mississippi officials who transformed their initial defense of the state's 15-week abortion ban into a broad assault on Roe benefited from two timely developments: the death of abortion rights supporter Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a sudden Texas abortion controversy involving a ban at six-weeks of pregnancy.

Mississippi had lost in lower courts because its prohibition conflicted with Supreme Court precedent dating to Roe, reaffirmed in 1992, prohibiting states from interfering with a woman's abortion decision before a fetus can live outside the womb, at about 23 weeks.


The Mississippi case reached the high court in summer 2020 and just as it was scheduled for a late September justices' conference, Ginsburg died on September 18. Then-President Donald Trump immediately nominated Barrett, an abortion rights critic, and the Senate confirmed her on October 26.

Without Barrett, the Mississippi petition might have been denied, as had happened in the past with abortion ban cases. There could have been the requisite four votes to accept the case, to be sure, but there would not have been a definite fifth for a majority vote against Roe.

Based on their previous statements and records, Alito and Kavanaugh, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with the high court's past abortion-rights rulings. The fifth conservative (before Barrett's succession of Ginsburg) was Roberts, and in 2020 he had broken from the right-wing to strike down a strict Louisiana regulation of physicians who perform abortions.

Roberts, as became evident, could not be counted on to reverse Roe.

Those calculations diminished in relevance with the addition of Barrett, of whom Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham declared during her confirmation hearing: "This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who's unashamedly pro-life and embraces her (Roman Catholic) faith without apology."

The justices publicly accepted Mississippi's appeal on May 17, 2021, and stated that they would decide only one question -- as Roberts continually remind his colleagues: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."

Just two days later, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law -- S.B. 8 -- banning abortions at roughly six weeks of pregnancy. A challenge to that blatantly unconstitutional prohibition unexpectedly became a prelude to the Mississippi case and revealed the majority's mindset.

The same five-justice majority that would eventually strike down Roe let the Texas ban take effect at the beginning of September, dissolving abortion rights for the country's second most populous state.
Roberts, along with the three liberal justices, dissented then and in December after the court had heard oral arguments in the Texas case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and ruled.

"The clear purpose and actual effect of S.B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings," Roberts wrote, adding that "the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system" was at stake.

The chief justice's persuasive power was also in the balance, and his failure to convince not one single colleague to break from the majority in the Texas controversy demonstrated a loss of authority in this area of the law.

By the time of December oral arguments in the Mississippi case, nationwide evisceration of abortion rights appeared near. Alito's questions foreshadowed what he would write in the opinion. He suggested he would find Roe "egregiously wrong" and be disinclined toward any "half-measures," that Roberts would propose. Kavanaugh and Barrett sounded similarly ready to go further than the question presented in the case originally tied to "pre-viability prohibitions" on abortion.
Roberts, on the other hand, wanted to dissolve the viability framework of Roe and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He would vote to uphold Mississippi's ban on abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy. But the chief justice believed the court should put off a full reconsideration of the constitutional right to abortion for earlier stages of pregnancy.

While no other justice revealed interest in that Roberts' option at oral arguments or in the weeks that followed, sources told CNN that there was still an air of possibility behind the scenes, based on Roberts' past pattern and the knowledge that justices have previously switched votes at the 11th hour.

Roberts, sources told CNN, might have some opening, even if slim.

he May 2 disclosure of the first draft in Dobbs made an already difficult task nearly impossible. It shattered the usual secrecy of negotiations and likely locked in votes, if they were not already solid.

To the extent that liberals had hoped that the original vote by conservatives would change, that hope faded. Meanwhile, CNN has learned, Politico's disclosure accelerated the urgency of the conservative side to try to issue the opinion before any other possible disruptions.

As Roberts kept trying to prevent total reversal of Roe, the three liberals worked on a joint dissent that recalled the three-justice plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

They referred to the three justices who had 30 years earlier preserved Roe -- Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, all appointees of Republican presidents -- as "judges of wisdom."

"They would not have won any contests for the kind of ideological purity some court watchers want Justices to deliver," Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote. "But if there were awards for Justices who left this Court better than they found it? And who for that reason left this country better? And the rule of law stronger? Sign those Justices up."

In the end, Roberts wrote alone. He concurred in the majority's decision to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban but called its repudiation of Roe "a serious jolt to the legal system."

With a rare note of personal uncertainty, Roberts added, "Both the Court's opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

26 Jul 2022, 9:38 pm

I was having a conversation with my gf and she says that where I live, Canada, it's almost impossible for a woman to get an abortion because even though it's legal in Canada, almost all doctors will not perform one. Was it the same way in the US before Roe v. Wade was overturned or is Canada much more restricted than the blue states perhaps?



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 67,988
Location: Chez Quis

26 Jul 2022, 9:46 pm

That's not true.

There are many clinics in BC for medical or surgical abortions.

I'm not sure which area you're in but here's some links confirming you don't need a doctor's referral.

Her GP or OBGYN can also refer her.

Pills are available for free at most pharmacies.


https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/pregnancy-p ... y/abortion

http://www.bcwomens.ca/our-services/gyn ... traception

https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/ ... providers/

https://bagshawclinic.ca/

https://vch.eduhealth.ca/PDFs/GE/GE.240.A26.pdf

Image

Image



Last edited by IsabellaLinton on 26 Jul 2022, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

26 Jul 2022, 9:56 pm

Oh okay. I'm in Saskatchewan so maybe it's different there.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 67,988
Location: Chez Quis

26 Jul 2022, 10:02 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I'm in Saskatchewan so maybe it's different there.


You moved provinces?



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

26 Jul 2022, 10:06 pm

I was from Saskatchewan originally, I just go to BC for work sometimes, and my gf's family is from there.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 67,988
Location: Chez Quis

26 Jul 2022, 10:17 pm

Your use of words is confusing.
You were from SK, so that means you aren't there now?
That means you are in BC now
Then you say you go to BC for work (meaning "there")
And your GF's parents live "there" in SK.

How are there two "theres" but no "heres" ?



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

26 Jul 2022, 10:46 pm

I'm in SK now but I was in BC for work before. I am from SK originally though. Sorry for the confusion.



SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 25
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,538
Location: China

28 Jul 2022, 4:55 pm

U.S. isolated at U.N. over its concerns about abortion, refugees reuters. DECEMBER 18, 2018

Quote:
The United States found itself isolated in the 193-member United Nations General Assembly on Monday over Washington’s concerns about the promotion of abortion and a voluntary plan to address the global refugee crisis.

Only Hungary backed the United States and voted against an annual resolution on the work of the U.N. refugee agency, while 181 countries voted in favor and three abstained. The resolution has generally been approved by consensus for more than 60 years.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.