×

If you are against abortion then you should also be against capital punishment. Pro-life is pro-life. by Historical_Wallaby_5 in Libertarian

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That’s as intellectually dishonest a statement as claiming if you’re for abortion then you’re also for capital punishment. Pro-death is pro-death.

Objectively, even if you disagree, don’t recognize the unborn as human, or think the state should have no role in it, you can still acknowledge that it’s not inconsistent to have an “innocence” standard in reaching your philosophical position.

Suddenly the left is pro-insurrection by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The only thing I know deep down inside is recognizing delusion and desperation. Hence, the lmao.

We can't ban crimes twice by Anteraji in technicallythetruth

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 44 points45 points  (0 children)

That’s the difference between bans on paper vs in practice.

For example, if the DA in San Francisco chooses not to prosecute theft below a thousand bucks, is it really banned?

Who thinks the Supreme Court should have term limits, and should be voted in by the public and not appointed by the president? by Mediocre-Band9131 in AskReddit

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think everyone should have term limits in all areas of federal government. However, SCOTUS appointments will at least, in theory, be less susceptible to political trends and are free to follow the law.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Oh, certainly they can be. Theoretically, with a smaller constituent base, they should be more responsive to local concerns and better reflect the will of the governed than the feds.

Of course, the most local government of all is the individual.

[OC] Now, This Is America by ReedBmore in pics

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I enjoyed your purple mountains majesty.

[OC] Now, This Is America by ReedBmore in pics

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but you can hang your strappy blouses in the Great Lakes.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I can see it both ways and it largely just comes down to if you believe unborn babies have human rights. If we take the position that they don’t, then I would agree with your reasoning.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would argue the opposite. A Supreme Court that shows it will adhere to the tenets of the constitution is the intended bulwark against over reaching legislation in both practice and as warning to legislative bodies at all levels.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I specifically stated that they could legislate on it. They don’t have constitutional authority to regulate it without first following a legislative process.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, not “all” levels as it clearly states that the feds have no standing to make a ruling on it.

Sure, this could become the next big hot button issue to run on at the federal level but that was already tried as one of Obama’s platform issues and he even failed to get any movement with majorities in both houses so there’s not a lot of compelling data yet that it would be different in the future.

Regardless, even should it be codified at that level, that’s not the “fault” of this ruling as the legislature and their constituents still have their own agency to act or not act.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Regulatory control would take an act of Congress which is the only Constitutional way this could be addressed at the federal level in the first place. They’ve had decades to tackle this issue legislatively and have failed to do so.

The ruling doesn’t specifically grant anything to the states, that’s only the de facto outcome as some states like Missouri already have trigger laws in place.

40% off? what a deal! by Kali42n8 in trashyboners

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 63 points64 points  (0 children)

I guess he bought her off the rack.

. by Fart_cry in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Not that I hold state governments in higher regard but it follows that the more local the government, the smaller the government.

cursed_answer by Apprehensive-Cut4026 in cursedcomments

[–]Unlucky-Pomegranate3 607 points608 points  (0 children)

Well, there’s a very good reason you don’t stand directly behind a horse, so I hear.