No matter your view - Poorly thought out "progressive" quick fix changes dont work

When you push agenda without doing the leg work you are always kicking the can down the road.

We haven't seen a change in law today, we've seen a poorly written law revoked. The is the exact same thing that happened to the New York gun laws. It appears getting used to the Supreme Court not doing their job and going outside of the constitution / bill of rights has ended and there will be a swing back to correct previous wrongs.

States have become lazy allowing Daddy fed to control what they should.

a reply to: latic

Whatever you say will be greeted favorably by some but not everybody 🚬

a reply to: latic

Poorly thought out "progressive" quick fix changes

I'll submit that progressive "fixes" go far beyond simply not working. They often lead to disaster. We see it time after time. The reason for this is simple. Liberals cannot think critically. I know the "all about feelz" meme has grown tiresome, but the left reinforces it every single day.

Entire books have been written about the liberals and their convoluted logic.

A few rogue, criminal cops are guilty of police brutality. The answer? Defund the police. Crime rates increase!
Fossil fuels harm the environment. The answer? Let's wage war on the oil industry. Gas is now 5 bucks a gallon!

Now we've reached the point where their feelings are all that matter. Because the supreme court made a decision they don't approve of, they want to abolish the supreme court.

You can't reason with delusional people. They live in their own fantasy world.

a reply to: latic

California is NOTORIOUS for doing this.

They just light the fuse and step back....

Then it's up to the citizenry to bear the brunt of the subsequent legal fallout.....FOR FKN YEARS!!!

I'm quite positive 100% of the time they KNOW it's unlawful or unconstitutional BEFORE they pass it, but the way they write it, and having the 9th Corrupt Circuit in their pocket, makes the task of injunctive relief all but futile.

There's no reconciliation or compensation for those damaged, maimed or killed by their "good intention" legislation. Just the wreckage in their wake.

originally posted by: latic
We haven't seen a change in law today, we've seen a poorly written law revoked.
....

I assume you are referring to the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

First, it wasn't a law, it was a decision by the Supreme Court finding that individual citizens have a right to privacy.

Second, the decision passed 7 to 2, with 5 of the 7 justices who voted for it appointed by Republicans. It wasn't seen as a progressive issue at the time; it was seen as an extension of traditional conservative values regarding non-interference of the government in personal affairs.

Third, It was debated for two years from December 1971 to January 1973; it wasn't poorly thought out.

The finding of the current court that individual citizens do not, in fact, have a right to privacy after being told for 50 years that they do seems to me to be poorly thought out in terms of the unintended consequences it's likely to have.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Explain how being able to have an abortion hurts a citizens right to privacy. Also, Dems are really to blame for this since for the last several years many of their leaders (former governor of VA for instance) clearly stated that after birth abortions are also just A OK. So they pushed too hard and now this is the result.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: latic

Poorly thought out "progressive" quick fix changes

I'll submit that progressive "fixes" go far beyond simply not working. They often lead to disaster. We see it time after time. The reason for this is simple. Liberals cannot think critically. I know the "all about feelz" meme has grown tiresome, but the left reinforces it every single day.

Entire books have been written about the liberals and their convoluted logic.

A few rogue, criminal cops are guilty of police brutality. The answer? Defund the police. Crime rates increase!
Fossil fuels harm the environment. The answer? Let's wage war on the oil industry. Gas is now 5 bucks a gallon!

Now we've reached the point where their feelings are all that matter. Because the supreme court made a decision they don't approve of, they want to abolish the supreme court.

You can't reason with delusional people. They live in their own fantasy world.

Progressives don't get that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They never think beyond making themselves feel good about something. They can't think far enough to see the unintended consequences of their policies.

a reply to: 1947boomer

"The finding of the current court that individual citizens do not, in fact, have a right to privacy after being told for 50 years that they do seems to me to be poorly thought out in terms of the unintended consequences it's likely to have."

Gimme a break..

Practically no one has an expectation of privacy anymore these days and they could actually careless.

How many actually read the Terms Of Agreement/Service before they install or update whatever?

Hardly anyone if any.

So THIS privacy is okay, but THIS privacy isn't??

Cool concept for a perpetual cycle of misery.

This is why no one really wins anything when it comes to this crap.

a reply to: 1947boomer

This was mainly about the Gun Laws in New York, however Roe vs Wade does fit into this.

However I also believe you are wrong with Roe vs Wade, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington were looking for women to take their case forward as part of their liberal activism.

Making the argument it not being poorly thought out, while its been revoked as poorly written / thought out is strange tho!

To confirm you are saying, using:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Wasn't badly thought out? I'd say the fact the amendment talks about not denying life makes this very poorly done.

I also would point out I believe the extremes of "both sides" do progressive activism, not just liberals. Any quick fix leads to issues.