Indeed, everyone loves the phrase “enshrined in the Constitution” as if it is religious document or something.
Yes, that is a debate that can be had.
However it still does not change the plain simple fact that Roe vs. Wade was ruled based on the 14th amendment and not simply a case of the court making up a right out of whole cloth. It does not make the characterization of Roe as a “made up right” and Miranda “not a made up right” any less absurd or inconsistent. The delineation of “made up right” is not and cannot be one’s subjective opinion of the relative strengths of the opinion.
No? “The side that lost” is, “people who want abortion to be illegal,” not necessarily “Democrat appointees to the supreme court”. That’s your own interpolation.
Oh, I see. This is also a distortion of what @Mark_Weston said. By “replicating the tactics” he clearly means using the supreme court to achieve the desired outcome rather than through some legislative means.
And DC v Heller ruled based on the 2nd amendment that private individuals have the right to own firearms. I don’t know if you support that conclusion, but a lot of people (including me) wouldn’t. I think it might be more useful to think of both cases as at least instances of, maybe, “discerning” rights rather than inventing them? But that’s still a judgment that we–and more to the point, other judges–might discern differently.
That is not “replicating the tactics”. It’s playing on the same field, not replicating the tactics.
It’s naked bothsiderism cloaked in a single similarity.
Would one say a football team who tries to score touchdowns but does not deflate their own balls to make them easier to catch is replicating the tactics of a team that does deflate their balls simply because they also want to score touchdowns?
I would say that a king who seeks to resolve a war through single combat of champions instead of pitched battle is replicating the tactics of another king who previously did the same thing, regardless of whether the current king also slipped some soporific drug into the wine of his enemy’s champion last night. Or rather than “replicating the tactics” I might say “choosing the same arena”. Regardless, I think it’s clear what he meant, but as is common with internet arguments you seem to be interpreting everything in the least charitable light possible.
Words have meanings. Replica, replicating, these are not weak terms that mean share a single similarity.
The statement in any light is absurd and I’m not sure why people feel the desire to accept and defend such absurdity.
Yes, it may have been meant as something else but poorly expressed by using the words that were used. Still those words were used. (I only have the transcript)
Like @Thrag said, words have meaning. If the current state of things (including the bait and switch filing to grant certori, and shenanigans around confirmations) is using the same tactics, then the tactic being described is simply… bringing a case before the supreme court. Literally every case ever has used that tactic.
To refuse to draw a distinction between the current case and recent history is straining credulity beyond parody.
Sure, words have meanings, but those meanings are not simple or mechanical and are open to multiple interpretations, which is something that feels a bit ironic to bring up in a thread about the Supreme Court reading the tea leaves of the constitution.
Ignoring the original context of things is something that people also do all the time on the internet, to my unending frustration. Yes, the tactic is bringing a case before the supreme court as opposed to legislating the issue, that was precisely what he was originally getting at.
Equating a single similarity with being a replica is not interpretation but butchery.
Can we skip the “what I think he meant was” “yes, but what he literally said was” roundabout.
Good lord, Thrag! If we skip that, we might as well close down P&R!
Heh, fair point.
Blaming the fact that white evangelicals suddenly discovered, sometime after the invention of the Happy Meal, a completely unquestionable inerrant biblical truth on Roe v. Wade has some real “why do you make him keep hitting you” energy.
If abortion was relatively uncontroversial at the time of Roe, why is it now a third rail of American politics? It’s because bad people operating in bad faith have cynically constructed a wedge issue.
And if they didn’t have Roe, they’d have created something else.
I 100% agree, and you might be right that Roe was the solution that the “problem” was looking for and if we weren’t fighting over abortion maybe white evangelicals would have made, I don’t know, tobacco prohibition or something their political litmus test. Or maybe abortion was always going to be a political football no matter what, given its function as a dogwhistle against women having sex on their own terms.
Abortion does have a bunch of things going for it as a wedge issue most others don’t - not only do you get to punish women, you can also cast your opponents as satanic baby killers, which basically makes you a hero by default.
Probably helps that the people fighting legal abortion kept at it, year after year, until eventually enough people believed them, while I imagine for most people it was something that didn’t need to be defended, because it was settled, the legal abortion side had won, time to move on.
That’s an awful sentiment, and doubly so from a pastor. The unborn have some rights to life that should be protected or they don’t, and where you draw those lines, if at all, can be debated and wrestled with forever, but to cynically accuse anyone who claims to care for the unborn of not caring enough for the right people is a vile thing for a pastor to do. Leave that to the internet, there are plenty of strangers there that are more than up to the task.
Edit: sorry, that obviously touched a nerve. There is a time and a place to confront someone who claims to believe something but whose actions don’t back it up. Something along this line might be an appropriate message for a specific audience. Posted without context, it just feels like smug virtue signaling.
Pastor is entirely correct and good on him to remind people of the actual words of jesus. More people need to be reminded of what christianity actually means in the words of their god rather than what they have been told that it means by people who have their own inherent failings, including most definitely greed, pride, and wrath.
What a relief that’s not what he did!
There’s a qualifier there.