Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but thats just moving the all or nothing from the fed to the state level. It doesn't solve the real problem. As I said earlier, the bible thumpers will pass laws to prosecute their citizens for sseeking or obtaining abortions beyond state lines. The pro-lifers are nuts. They can't be trusted.

As a separate point, consider whether the people elected to state office were placed there by voters with the expectation that they'd be deciding abortion issues. Aside from the occasional crackpot, few candidates have run on express platforms of making abortion illegal once we get rid of all those activist judges.

Consider also that GOPers as of 2002 are in control in a majority of state legislatures, the first time that's happened in 50 years.

Link

Granted, this stuff would get sorted out over the subsequent election cycles, but I occasionally wonder how much thought people put into electing state officials (other than governors). I'd bet not much.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Why can't we just have the open debate about abortion? I think its because the pro-lifers fear that the majority of America would view it as a necessary right of women. As I said earlier, if put to referendum nationally, abortion would remain legal. Perhaps restricted a bit, but legal. Thats why the pro-lifers have hidden behind this bullshit federalist agenda. It puts them in bed with the gun lobby and all the other interests who want the fed govt OFF their back.

If you're so fucking sure, let the people actually put it to a vote, rather than hiding your hand behind the greatest example of Supreme Court overreaching since Wickard v Fillburn.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you're so fucking sure, let the people actually put it to a vote, rather than hiding your hand behind the greatest example of Supreme Court overreaching since Wickard v Fillburn.

Why unsettle the issue just to purify the jurisprudence?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you're so fucking sure, let the people actually put it to a vote, rather than hiding your hand behind the greatest example of Supreme Court overreaching since Wickard v Fillburn.

Dude. Way to work in an obscure cite. Is that the one about the chicken-farmers?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Why unsettle the issue just to purify the jurisprudence?

I think the primary reason for the great divide in this country on abortion is that the issue was settled overnight, via judicial decree, rather than through open political debate, popular vote and legislation.

eta: the Economist had an excellent article on this very topic in June of last year (need registration to get link) - and why in Europe it is not as divisive an issue

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If it's my fault, why did you feel compelled to edit your post to add this

Because after I twice pointed out that all I was criticizing was the mode, you still didn't get it.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

And as for "agreeing" with Balt's "method of deployment" comment, you should read the whole thing. Are you saying you'd support more bussing of white people?

I am for no bussing at all and anti-discrimination laws. What has helped blacks the most are the civil rights laws, not court ordered bussing (which I believe hurt blacks).

I think it is fine that the court found separate but equal wasn't equal. However, instead of bussing they should have just not let the schools discriminate but still allow them to draw their school districts based on locality. The boundaries of the school districts could have been challenged if they were being drawn to keep the schools segregated.

I think if it had been done that way and fair housing laws and anti-discrimination laws were enacted (which they were without a court forcing the congress to do it), the schools would have become integrated over time. Yes it would have been slower, but it would have been a more peaceful transition and you wouldn't have seen white flight from the cities if the schools were integrated more slowly.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the primary reason for the great divide in this country on abortion is that the issue was settled overnight, via judicial decree, rather than through open political debate, popular vote and legislation.

eta: the Economist had an excellent article on this very topic in June of last year (need registration to get link) - and why in Europe it is not as divisive an issue

Brown created divisiveness too, but we are the better for it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the primary reason for the great divide in this country on abortion is that the issue was settled overnight, via judicial decree, rather than through open political debate, popular vote and legislation.

eta: the Economist had an excellent article on this very topic in June of last year (need registration to get link) - and why in Europe it is not as divisive an issue

I think the same can be said about court ordered bussing (and gay marriage). As a society, we were moving towards integration, as evidenced by the civil rights laws. I think the court should have ruled that the school districts couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and therefore had to fund all schools equally and allow blacks to attend a predominantly white school if they lived in that school district. Same if whites were living in a predominantly black school district.

Forcing bussing on people created more hate on both sides and caused white flight. On balance, more harm than help.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Brown created divisiveness too, but we are the better for it.

While striking down segregated schools was a good thing, I see no evidence that blacks are better off because of court ordered bussing and quite a bit of evidence that it did more harm than good. As more blacks gained economic power and as the ciivl rights laws were enacted, it would have happened on its own without all the negative consequences.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think it is fine that the court found separate but equal wasn't equal. However, instead of bussing they should have just not let the schools discriminate but still allow them to draw their school districts based on locality. The boundaries of the school districts could have been challenged if they were being drawn to keep the schools segregated.

I think if it had been done that way and fair housing laws and anti-discrimination laws were enacted (which they were without a court forcing the congress to do it), the schools would have become integrated over time. Yes it would have been slower, but it would have been a more peaceful transition and you wouldn't have seen white flight from the cities if the schools were integrated more slowly.

Uh huh.

If you or Hello would please explain how the schools would've magically integrated without court intervention (quickly, slowly, or at all), it would be much appreciated.

I've been reading several days' worth of this shit, and still I remain puzzled as to how one would come to the conclusion that, in the absence of court intervention, (1) not insignificant elements of society in the 1960s that were quite prepared to kill federal marshals escorting black kids to desegregated schools would somehow melt away into the populace at large, and that (2) notwithstanding evidence that people have a general tendency to self-segregate in communities, that somehow people would overcome this tendency, move to the new areas which will offer no resistance to such moves, and Shazam! we have integrated schools! Hooray!

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Brown created divisiveness too, but we are the better for it.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but Brown didn't exactly create a new "right" out of thin air.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Perhaps I'm missing something, but Brown didn't exactly create a new "right" out of thin air.

Uh, the "right" for blacks to attend the same schools as whites (which, you may note, is not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution). Did you miss that part?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh, the "right" for blacks to attend the same schools as whites (which, you may note, is not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution). Did you miss that part?

Well that's OBVIOUSLY implied by the whole equal rights amendment or whatever. Whereas, using contraception in the privacy of one's own home (which is, I think, a necessary precursor to the Roe privacty thing) is not obvious. I mean, SURELY you can see where one is just OBVIOUS and the other isn't?

(note: I think pretty much all conlaw is just totally made up bullshit crap.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Perhaps I'm missing something, but Brown didn't exactly create a new "right" out of thin air.

Neither did Roe. There was a lot of caselaw leading up to Roe, including the punumbra of privacy rights in Griswold. You tenth amendment people really don't like the 9th amendment, do you?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well that's OBVIOUSLY implied by the whole equal rights amendment or whatever. Whereas, using contraception in the privacy of one's own home (which is, I think, a necessary precursor to the Roe privacty thing) is not obvious. I mean, SURELY you can see where one is just OBVIOUS and the other isn't?

(note: I think pretty much all conlaw is just totally made up bullshit crap.)

True. But if we're doing away with all results-oriented jurisprudence, why don't we start with Bush v. Gore?