How legitimate would?

#1

How legitimate would a far left court be? Did you all know banning possession of child pornography was a 6-3 split. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Brennan and joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued, “When speech is eloquent and the ideas expressed lofty, it is easy to find restrictions on them invalid. But were the First Amendment limited to such discourse, our freedom would be sterile indeed. Mr. Osborne’s pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law.”[4]

Note the minority opinion and read, as it is very offensive. I find what happened 3 days ago no less offensive. In fact actually arguably more so offensive. So if a court acted in such a way as the far left minority would have? Just imagine it if it was the majority in 1990 ok. Just add two more Brennans and take away O’Connor & Blackmun. Now how long would it take for your party to find it illegitimate?

Now knowing that my party has the similar feelings, but with a notable exception this time your 3 judges are in the majority. I ask you how long will it take to find your court illegitimate? How long are we going to be asking the socio-legal equivalent of the heritage foundation for legitimacy?

Please do answer. Once it is found illegitimate what happens?
A huge divergence between states. Unlawful extraditions, open combat?
Now imagine a huge co-insurgency under a left wing administration how inclined are they to protect your interests?

#2

I’m not even sure what you’re talking about (as often is the case). I’m not sure what it is you’re saying about porn, and if you’re referring to the overturning of Roe, the Joseph Kennedy case, or what.

1 Like
#3

What is “illegitimate,” @Unitedwestand? The court found that the decision about abortion laws should be turned back to the states and not dictated by the Federal Government. That’s all it did. Abortion is not universally illegal. The decision is now more in the hands of the people.

Your side overstepped its bounds by advocating infantacide. Even I, as a pro-choice advocate, early in a pregnancy, could not support that, and nor could many other Americans. If you want your party to stay in power, people like you need to tell your leaders like AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and others to tone it down or step aside.

1 Like
#4

Yes, I too often have trouble understanding what point @Unitedwestand is trying to make.

#5

This is one of those questions Doug warned me about. Where if I strike a point so hard in the opposite. It becomes hard for you to defend your position. You all feign not being able to understand me. When I composed this I ran it through Google Docs. That application checks grammar and linguistical understanding.

#6

If you are trusting a computer program to be your proof reader, you are in trouble.

#7

image
image750×1334 196 KB
religious freedom matter?

#8

No, I didn’t “feign” jack diddly squat. What in the world are you talking about?

#9

I think it’s another one of those “we may be bad but you are worse” kind of things. Or you’re equally bad or something. You know, like, 200 years ago some republican judge decided he wanted to outlaw guns and now every republican is tainted with the anti-gun moniker forever.

I think. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

#10

I think what United – whose posts are often hard to decipher – [United: here’s a helpful rule: no paragraph should be longer than three sentences.] – is talking about is this:

The Left and the Right have, on the surface, switched positions on Free Speech.

It used to be the Right who weren’t happy about it, when it was exercised by Communists and the like. If a professor at a university came out in favor of the victory of the Viet Cong in Vietnam, conservatives would demand that he be fired. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Genovese#Controversy_during_the_Vietnam_war]

And the Left defended the free speech of Communists, not because they really were for free speech for everyone, but because they sympathyzed with the people whose free speech was being denied.

(Okay, there were exceptions – the ACLU used to be pretty fundamentalist on free speech, even defending the right of Nazis tomarch through Jewish neighborhoods. That’s changing rapidly, unfortunately.)

Now the shoe is on the other foot. It’s not that Conservtives have changed their mind, or Leftists have changed theirs, with respect to principles.

It’s just that then, we were running things (‘we’ being the Right, the Center and a lot of liberals), and the people being persecuted were on the Left. Now they’re running things, and we are the people being persecuted. Hardly anyone really believes in free speech (except for themselves).

But … no one actually says, ‘Free speech for me, but not for thee’. They fall back on libertarian principles.

And by these prinicples, objectionable ‘speech’ that was not political – like pornography – was also legalized, with the support of the Left but not the Right.

So, United is in effect saying, 'Okay, you principled libertarian free speech supporters … what happens when your guys on the Supreme Court take the logical next step: if heterosexual adult pornography is protected speech, and if homosexual adult pornography is okay – pornography portraying adults – then why not pornography portraying children? ’

Of course he’s right (if this is what he’s saying). His argument, I think, is:

" An adult who draws – not photographs – child pornography, prints it up, and gives it or sells it to other consenting adults … remember, no actual children involved! – isn’t that free speech? And your radical Supreme Court, busy overturning past decisions, might do it! What will you say then, ha ha ha!"

Well … what would we say then? We surrendered the gates to the city long ago. Most men enjoy looking at pornography, so most of the laws against it have vanished.

(Anyone interested in the history of this can find it on Wiki, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States)

Not the same, but related, is the issue of the advocacy of sex with children. The people who are pushing the current sexualization of children are pretty savvy, and do not (yet) openly call for this. They know how to advance by stealth.

But there is a Free Speech issue here: is there a right to advocate sex with children? What about writing a novel which describes it, presenting the protagonist in a sympathetic light? (Be careful – one of the great writers of the 20th Century did exactly that.)

Should academic freedom extend to professors who say that there is nothing wrong with it? We have just such a case right now, with an ecentric philosophy professor in New York in danger of losing his job because he said just that. (My personal position: we must defend him, on academic freedom grounds.)

Now maybe I have misunderstood United and if so I am sure he will set me straight.

#11

This case where a far left minority (3-6 supremes) in 1990. If they had their way it would of legalized REAL Child Abuse imagery for personal possession. OK that’s AWFUL TOO FAR LEFT. What happened in overturning ROE v Wade was AWFUL too Far RIGHT. Now if a court was very AWFUL. For example I tried to take an example of a very awful interpretation of a left wing Minority decision in 1990. That decision did not that did not stand. I’m trying to say if it did “Imagine” how long would a court like that have legitimacy?

Legitimacy of the court is important it means we all have the consent of the governed. I for one am no longer giving consent to the supreme court which means nothing. When 40% or 50% no longer give their consent you have a legitimacy crisis. As southern states refused to consent to Lincoln.

I’m like 1970s ACLU I would defend nazi’s to be losers.