this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
-22 points (31.7% liked)
Conservative
243 readers
11 users here now
We are a community dedicated to discussion surrounding the political right.
People of all political views are welcome here, but we expect a high level of discussion from everyone.
Rules:
-Good Faith participation only. take hollow shit slinging elsewhere please
-Stay on topic. should be obvious
-Follow instance rules. They pay the bills, they get to set rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
I think one should criticize the influence of the courts rather than simply blaming 'the conservatives'. The court system has become quite the monster over the past 100 years. They can have free reign over policy decisions that ought to be handled by the legislature. Because of judicial review, the Judicial branch of the federal government can effectively make law where there was none before which used to be the domain of the Legislatures and the populace.
Did you know that around a hundred years ago, the Legislative branch controlled the docket for the Supreme Court?
I know that's not the point that you're trying to make, as blaming your woes on the conservatives is much easier for the brain. I'm sure that if the average .world user had dictatorial power for a day, one of the first acts would be to disenfranchise the Christians because they are problem voters, and shortly after repealing the second amendment in its entirety.
I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
I mostly agree, though I'd like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn't have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.
(I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)
How so? Is it not reasonable to enforce that ballot measures must be specific and not just a ton of stuff all bundled into a big all-or-nothing vote?
What's illegal is different from what's reasonable. I'm going to have to find the judge's opinion, but the article doesn't really give any reasons why it's illegal.
Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time
You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?
Then vote it down
Actually, now that I read the damn article again, it seems like there's a single subject rule in Nevada. That's the crux of the issue.
Yes. That was the entire point. What have you been talking about this whole time
At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.
Lmao tell me you're just posting outrage without reading the article without telling me.
If you had been bothered to read before making a retarded quip, you'd notice that the rejection by judge was because the ballot measure was not specific enough, and was just meant to tack a bunch of stuff on such that it could get passed simply by being attached to a different issue.
If you don't see why that's not how things should run, I only assume you're the one person on earth who isn't a corrupt politician that just absolutely salivates over every god awful omnibus bill with hundreds of riders for random garbage
So your argument is the public is too stupid to decide ballot measures by themselves?
No. It's quite telling that you refuse to address the actual reason, and are just trying to pin it off on anything else. Perhaps there's a reason you're so incredibly pissy that these issues can't just all be slammed into one omnibus package, but rather have to be individually voted on?
It's pretty dishonest to call it an omnibus package. It all comes down to whether or not you think the government should have the power to regulate a person's fertility and childbearing. That is hardly the limited type of government conservatives say they support.
It covers a whole lot of things. If you could be bothered to read, which i know is a struggle for you, you'd see it covers a lot of stuff and isn't one concise policy.
All that stuff relates to fertility and child bearing like I said.
Denser than a fucking brick, you are
Tell me where I am wrong. I didn't see anything saying otherwise in the article
Seems I was right about you
Enlighten me then.
I have. Multiple fucking times
Which post did you tell me what other things are in this omnibus?
The fucking article told you that.
All I saw in the article is that it involved matters related to fertility and childbearing. You said I was wrong. Tell me how.
You seriously fail to understand how "everything related to those topics" is not a single issue bill?
It's all related to reproductive rights. Bills related to fundamental rights are often broad. For example the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This is no different.
So you agree it's broad then? Cool. They should either pass individual ballot measures or fuck off. Just crying "rights" isn't an excuse to sidestep good legislatige process
Ballot measures are part of the legislative process. It's broad because it needs to be. Reproductive rights touch on a lot of areas. It's not a severable principle. It needs to be broad. The idea that it is overbroad is wrong.
It's entirely severable. The article clearly listed multiple distinct topics. Measures could easily be made for each separate one.
It could be, but it wouldn't make sense as it wouldn't serve the purpose of the ballot initiative. It's all based on the same legal principle that the government does not have the right to infringe on an individual's rights to reproductive control.
I could make an entire encyclopedia of law just under one incredibly generic principle like you're doing. It doesn't make it into a specific policy just because it shares a theme.
Look at other ballot measures, like weed legalization. Those simple principles sprung an encyclopedia of laws too. ANY significant change to government policy will do that. Complexity is certainly not a reason to ignore the will of the voters.
Jesus you're fucking dense. Yes, there's an encyclopedia of laws to be passed. No, it doesn't justify forcing them all into one big yes/no
You can keep insisting that it's an "encyclopedia of laws" but that doesn't make it true. Ballot initiatives are to determine the public stance on the issues. The public wants reproductive rights. It doesn't matter if you describe it in those 2 words or a thousand words. It means the same thing.
So then vote on each specific law individually and stop throwing a fit if its all stuff you're confident in. Simple as.
Or Republicans could stop treating the public like idiots who can't decide on more than one thing at once. Funny how y'all have no problem with compendium bills when it comes to disenfranchisement of minority voters or cutting taxes on the wealthy.
OK, and? Democracy isn't some god to worship. If democracy can't achieve good results, is it not reasonable to view alternative systems as a next choice?
Well, that would leave oligarchic and authoritarian systems. If we assume that every politician is primarily looking out for itself, then the people should go with a democratic system. A dictator is after all, only beholden to itself, and will aim to extract wealth from the people it rules to secure its own position and lifestyle. If the US where to switch from a democracy to a dictatorship, most citizens would see their taxes go up, and their economic and political freedoms decline. And for the USA, this would spit in the face of conservative values.
Nobody says we must maintain some "pure" system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most "pure" definition, yes. It's far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn't mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn't under question of majoritatian will.
Have you even read the comment I'm replying to?
That's certainly what Republicans want but there are alternatives. Our current system is pretty authoritarian anyway, TBH.
Well, yeah, American democracy is rather flawed.
Not even in the slightest