Politics [News] Fox defends chicken rights

[DrZoidberg]

This guy needs to get off his woke horse. Absolutely shameless. The only reason anyone cares about what he says is because his family strenuously fought against democracy and human for near a thousand years. Anyone else would give his words more weight.

I'm not saying he's not allowed to have these opinions, it's just bizarre we're supposed to not see the problem.


BBC News - Prince Harry says democracy under 'global assault'

Prince Harry says democracy under 'global assault'

At the UN, Prince Harry laments the "rolling back of constitutional rights" in his adopted home.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[TomC]

I don't see the problem.

Yeah, I find British Royalty about as significant as the Kardashian clan. But I agree with what he apparently said. Even though I'm opposed to elective abortion, what's going on here is appallingly immoral and undemocratic. He's tying it to the global trend towards authoritarianism, which I agree with as well.

The fact that he's a pampered brat with some profoundly ethically primitive ancestors doesn't change any of that.
Tom

ETA ~I even clicked on your link because of your click baity title. I interpreted it as "Fox News defends poultry rights"
Like maybe some PETA hothead got a spot on their channel. ~

 

[Metaphor]

I don't see the problem.

Yeah, I find British Royalty about as significant as the Kardashian clan. But I agree with what he apparently said.

What he said doesn't make sense.

Speaking during Mandela Day at the United Nations, Prince Harry argued democracy was under "global assault".

He cited the “rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States", his adopted home, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to last month's Supreme Court ruling that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

How, precisely, was the Supreme Court ruling evidence for an 'assault' on 'democracy'? Did it take away the right for the people to determine the people who create the laws they live under?

 

[TSwizzle]

This guy needs to get off his woke horse. Absolutely shameless. The only reason anyone cares about what he says is because his family strenuously fought against democracy and human for near a thousand years. Anyone else would give his words more weight.

I don't think many people care about what that ginger twat says.

I'm not saying he's not allowed to have these opinions, it's just bizarre we're supposed to not see the problem.

I don't think there is a problem since few people pay attention to what he says.

I will admit, his missus is a bit of alright.

 

[TomC]

How, precisely, was the Supreme Court ruling evidence for an 'assault' on 'democracy'? Did it take away the right for the people to determine the people who create the laws they live under

A batch of reasons.

A) The American people as a whole support RvW. I don't, but that's the political reality.

B) The judges who made the new ruling were appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular election. POTUS isn't an elected position in the USA. But the fact remains that an election loser appointed a bunch of judges who went against the Will of the People.

C) In 1973, SCOTUS decided that RvW was Constitutional. The new, undemocratic SCOTUS decided it wasn't.
Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution is rather like the Bible. People can support almost any modern position by deciding personally which verses to prioritize and which to handwave away as irrelevant.

D) The current makeup of the SCOTUS is demonstrably an outcome of the TeaPartiers like McConnell ignoring the Constitution for partisan political gain. They destroyed the SCOTUS as a nonpartisan, independent, branch of the USA government. So there is no longer a legitimate arbiter of Constitutional Law in the USA.

There's a start.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

How, precisely, was the Supreme Court ruling evidence for an 'assault' on 'democracy'? Did it take away the right for the people to determine the people who create the laws they live under

A batch of reasons.

A) The American people as a whole support RvW. I don't, but that's the political reality.

Quite irrelevant. Interpretation of the Constitution is not an exercise in popularity. The Constitution specifically sets the rules of the democracy, and the Supreme Court decision didn't change the rules.

B) The judges who made the new ruling were appointed by a POTUS who lost the popular election. POTUS isn't an elected position in the USA. But the fact remains that an election loser appointed a bunch of judges who went against the Will of the People.

Quite irrelevant. Interpretation of the Constitution is not an exercise in popularity. The Constitution specifically sets the rules of the democracy, and the Supreme Court decision didn't change the rules. Additionally, if an "unelected" POTUS (which is wrong, he or she is elected by the electoral college) appoints judges, then the judges since the first Supreme Court have been as "undemocratic" as every other judge.

C) In 1973, SCOTUS decided that RvW was Constitutional. The new, undemocratic SCOTUS decided it wasn't.
Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution is rather like the Bible. People can support almost any modern position by deciding personally which verses to prioritize and which to handwave away as irrelevant.

Well, I kind of agree, but that doesn't make the decision an 'assault on democracy'.

D) The current makeup of the SCOTUS is demonstrably an outcome of the TeaPartiers like McConnell ignoring the Constitution for partisan political gain. They destroyed the SCOTUS as a nonpartisan, independent, branch of the USA government. So there is no longer a legitimate arbiter of Constitutional Law in the USA.

There's a start.
Tom

I find that claim extraordinary. Are you telling me every single Supreme Court justice appointed before and after Trump were non-partisan? That nothing was known about their political views, or they passed some 'neutrality' test that I don't know about?