Bannasidhe wrote: » I imagine many people in the U.S. feel the same way right now. Looking at the conservative right and just thinking "what the actual f*ck :eek:". Ya can't reason with zealots.
smacl wrote: » Even from the other side of the Atlantic I look at right wing religious conservatism in the US and think WTAF. The fact they're funding the pro-life effort over here is also a cause of concern. As for SF, I'm not convinced that hard-line nationalism and socialism make for such a good mix
Odhinn wrote: » It's hardline nationalist with regards british activity in Ireland certainly. However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I would tend to agree that SF are not what I would consider "hard-line" nationalist as that has connotations to the xenophobic hard right fleg waving fraternity. I think they are of a left-wing, self-determination, school of nationalism that the likes of Connolly would understand very well. It's the nationalism that believes people do best when they have self-determination - in Connolly's time the 'enemy' was the imperialist superstate that tried to mould other people into becoming whatever was the 'origin' peoples - so essentially in an Irish (Indian, Scottish, Welsh, South African etc etc) context English was best so everyone had to be as Anglo as possible as to be otherwise was inferior. Things are a bit more nuanced now due to our society becoming more ethnically diverse - plus outward looking - and the definition of 'Irish' is broadening. It is the Right that has issues with that broadening, not the Left. SF can accept the 'New' Irish easily (meaning ethnicity is not their sole definition of 'Irish'), but cannot accept that Irish people are best ruled by English people sitting in Westminster. They are not a million miles from the SNP politically- the difference is Scotland did not not follow the revolution route, did not have a war of independence/civil war, did not have 'British' troops on it's streets enforcing the status quo and so didn't have the 'nationalist' push back either. They skipped the paramilitary phase. The sticky bit for SF is this whole Irish = Catholic trope. The Catholic bit and the Socialist bit are not very compatible.
Odhinn wrote: » Given the partys "small c" approach to catholciism (eg its support of gay marriage), I'd say they are - at best - al la carte catholics in the classic irish tradition.
Odhinn wrote: » However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.
lazygal wrote: » I wasn't going to have one but if you're offering like......
Bannasidhe wrote: » Yerra, sure tis in the Constitution now so it's mandatory you're entitled.
Bannasidhe wrote: » ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Abortion anyone?
Odhinn wrote: » Do you have gift vouchers for the abortioning ?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Not just vouchers, but throwing in a free impregnation as part of the package no doubt.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Westminster is sovereign over NI according to UK law, and it legislated for abortion in NI. Case closed. The Tele is the voice of conservative unionism which is undoubtedly pissed off at the moment for this among many other reasons. O'Loan is a religious fundie from the other direction. Public opinion in repeated polls in NI has been in favour of abortion legalisation for a long time now. The usual opponents of democracy rear their ugly heads.
But it was all a lie, McCorvey says in a documentary filmed in the months before her death in 2017, claiming she only did it because she was paid by antiabortion groups including Operation Rescue. “I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.” In what she describes as a “deathbed confession,” a visibly ailing McCorvey restates her support for reproductive rights in colorful terms: “If a young woman wants to have an abortion, that’s no skin off my ass. That’s why they call it choice.”
Mark Hamill wrote: » There is a documentary coming out this Friday on Norma McCorvey, called AKA Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey being the woman at the centre of the Roe Vs Wade court case in the states). While she was the woman in the original case looking for the abortion, in the 90s she did an about turn and joined the "pro-life" movement (something which has been held up in this thread by "pro-life"posters). Apparently this documentary has footage of her just before her death in 2016 admitting that she changed sides because she was paid too do so.
Cabaal wrote: » I think pro lifers will likely ignore this and continue to use her to further their little zealot view.
Igotadose wrote: » Looks like the USSC struck down yet another anti-abortion law in the US. The WH isn't pleased. Way to go, Justice Roberts. Surprisingly liberal on occasion, though usually just pro-Corporation:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law/
ohnonotgmail wrote: » don't pat Roberts on the back too much. he struck it down because the SC struck down something similar a few years ago. On that occasion he voted the other way.
Peregrinus wrote: » Nevertheless, because he lost the argument that time around, he now regards the question as settled. He makes that quite clear this time; the decision he voted for here is not to his personal taste, but as far as he is concerned it is the settled law of the land and as a judge he must support it. Pro-lifers will be very, very disappointed at this. Roberts has set his face against overturning the Supreme Court overturning its own prior rulings on this question, and overturning the existing rulings is precisely what pro-lifers hoped or expected that Roberts (as part of a Conservative majority) would do.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that is the minimum expected of a supreme court judge
Peregrinus wrote: » It's not so simple. The Supreme Court does have the power to reverse its own previous decisions, and occasionally does. Most famously, in 1954 it ruled in Brown -v- Board of Education that the provision of "separate but equal" public facilities for black and white citizens does not satisfy the constitutional requirement to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws, overturning a previous decision (Plessy -v- Ferguson) which held that it did. This decision was a major landmark in the progress of civil rights in the US, and was much criticised by conservatives at the time as improper, changing the law in a way that should have been left to the legislature. Conservatives since then have reckoned that, if the Supreme Court can reverse itself to develop the law in a progressive way, it can also reverse itself to develop the law in a conservative way, and a large part of the reason for welcoming conservative or (in Trump's case) pseudo-conservative presidents who will appoint conservative justices is the hope that, when there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the court might reverse existing progressive decisions like, among others, Roe -v- Wade. And it's not an unfounded hope because, as already noted, the Court can and does reverse itself. So I don't think it's correct to say that maintaining existing decisions is "the minimum expected of a supreme court judge". A Supreme Court justice has to decide when existing decisions should be maintained and when, exceptionally, they should be reversed. And this decisions shows that Roberts is not as willing to reverse existing decisions (that he thinks are poor decisions) as some expected or hoped he would be.
Igotadose wrote: » Further, rest assured the anti-abortion side will try again and again and again,
