This I think, is likely to be a huge gut shot to the left. Maybe even Roe v. Wade's in play now.

Supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, who has provided crucial swing votes in cases governing core progressive issues including abortion rights and same-sex marriage, announced his retirement on Wednesday in a decision likely to send shockwaves into every corner of US civic life.

The announcement set up a titanic battle between Republicans allied with Donald Trump, who wish to replace Kennedy with a more reliably conservative justice, and Democrats who fear that a new Trump appointment could give the court a decisive conservative bent for generations.

...

Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire

ETA: There more than a few legal pundits talking about how Roe v. Wade is almost certainly going to be overturned, along with Obergefell. Who knows, maybe Kitzmiller v. and Brown v. are at stake.

I give it 6 months for Roe vs Wade. They've already weaponised the First Amendment with the recent ruling on union contributions, that exact argument can be used to overturn virtually any decision.

Gird your loins, y'all, it's fixing to get serious here. Ammo, toilet paper, canned meats, and pre-64 silver coinage, that's my advice. Maybe a boat.

laklak wrote:Gird your loins, y'all, it's fixing to get serious here. Ammo, toilet paper, canned meats, and pre-64 silver coinage, that's my advice. Maybe a boat.

I understand the distress, but I don't understand the surprise. The elders of the court were old when Trump was elected, and even if you didn't expect them to serve into their 90s, they have a completely different perspective on the sweep of history than we do. Or is that the seep of history? Note that I am not seeing any surprise in your tone, lak.

Panic on the switchboard, tongues are in knots
Some come out in sympathy, some come out in spots...

There is something wrong with a system if one dude's decision to retire could cause such havok...

cyghost wrote:There is something wrong with a system if one dude's decision to retire could cause such havok...

Yes, exactly. What's wrong with the system is that anyone still thinks it's worthwhile to whine about what's wrong with the system. I don't think it's a great system, either, but that's just my opinion, man, and I didn't expect more from ground apes.

If you know South Africa, you know all about systems that aren't so great that one can go around shouting about what's wrong with someone else's system.

Bit of a tu quoque, eh Cito?

Like George Carlin said about cynics, I remain idealsitic about ground apes doing better. Slavery is (just about) gone; I was hoping that women's rights won't still be in the hands of a few grumpy old men.

I accept thats just me and my opinion, like, man.

cyghost wrote:Bit of a tu quoque, eh Cito?

You mean, I'm doing what you just did? Problem is, you didn't say also. You don't actually believe that your idealism makes you a swell person, do you? We get that mainly from the religious nuts, don't we?

cyghost wrote:Slavery is (just about) gone;

In what sense? In the sense that wage slaves now get paid a pittance instead of nothing at all? That's some rose glasses you have, there. The smart money is still on those who can game the system.

What ever in the world would give you the idea that I think that makes me a swell person?? I was merely replying to you not expecting more from gound apes; I get you are the ultimate cynic. If you think also applies here then I graciously acept your rebuke.

cyghost wrote:What ever in the world would give you the idea that I think that makes me a swell person?? I was merely replying to you not expecting more from gound apes; I get you are the ultimate cynic. If you think also applies here then I graciously acept your rebuke.

Well, then why boast about your idealism, cyghost? Who should care whether or not you have hope for humanity? The world-without-enders, I should think. When I say I don't expect more from ground apes, I'm just going with the empirical. If empiricism is cynical, excuse the shit out of me.

I know how people salve their consciences by buying carbon credits and donating to greenpeace and then boast about their environmentalism. Reminds me of papal indulgences, frankly.

While I think this is dragging way off topic, I hate leaving questions unanswered; especially rhetorical ones. I'm wasn't boasting; I was merly saying I *do* keep on expecting more from gound apes and, I don't think you should care either way; thats just the way it goes. You are excused.

now, the rabbit hole is too deep for me and ill back out leaving others to discuss the next supreme court justice

on which I have a question for my American friends: overturning row vs wade means the states gets to decide again and we'll have states where abortion is illegal and others where it isn't or can and will they make it illegal across the USA?

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

What does it mean to you to see the glass as empty? How to treat the glass is a subjective matter. I'm going with the empirical.

I can appreciate technological progress without believing it is the salvation of humanity. What does it take to believe in salvation?

Social achievements, social disasters. You're going to take the thick with the thin.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

What does it mean to you to see the glass as empty? How to treat the glass is a subjective matter. I'm going with the empirical.

I can appreciate technological progress without believing it is the salvation of humanity. What does it take to believe in salvation?

Seing a glass empty when it's half full (or half empty) is the exact opposite of "going with the empirical".

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

What does it mean to you to see the glass as empty? How to treat the glass is a subjective matter. I'm going with the empirical.

I can appreciate technological progress without believing it is the salvation of humanity. What does it take to believe in salvation?

Seing a glass empty when it's half full (or half empty) is the exact opposite of "going with the empirical".

Yes, and that's your problem to deal with, in case you haven't been keeping track. Where have I said the glass is empty? I don't spout much confidence in social progress, which is two steps forward and two steps back. You can neglect the latter if you like, but that's subjectivity, for ya. This thread is, from your perspective, all about lamenting the backward steps.

I live in Europe, which is busy at the moment figuring out the politics of immigration. I'm not betting on a positive outcome. How would I do that, anyway? Employ refugees? How many people 'contributing' to this thread are employers?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yes, and that's your problem to deal with, in case you haven't been keeping track. Where have I said the glass is empty? I don't hold out much confidence in social progress

That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts, and then building an opinion, which would be what "going with the eimpirical" would entail.

Cito di Pense wrote:
which is two steps forward and two steps back. You can neglect the latter if you like, but that's subjectivity, for ya. This thread is, from your perspective, all about lamenting the backward steps.

You're projecting here. How can I be neglecting the steps back, while from my perspective, being all about lamenting the backward steps ? You make no sense. You're the one refusing to see the steps forward, from your own admission, which disqualifies you from claiming you're going empirical.

Cito di Pense wrote:
I live in Europe, which is busy at the moment figuring out the politics of immigration. I'm not betting on a positive outcome.

Who cares ? And how is that being empirical ?

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, and that's your problem to deal with, in case you haven't been keeping track. Where have I said the glass is empty? I don't hold out much confidence in social progress

That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts, and then building an opinion, which would be what "going with the eimpirical" would entail.

So you say.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
which is two steps forward and two steps back. You can neglect the latter if you like, but that's subjectivity, for ya. This thread is, from your perspective, all about lamenting the backward steps.

You're projecting here. How can I be neglecting the steps back, while from my perspective, being all about lamenting the backward steps ? You make no sense. You're the one refusing to see the steps forward, from your own admission, which disqualifies you from claiming you're going empirical.

So you say. You can't make a proper inventory, so we're back to subjectivity, and you don't have an argument, yet.

Got anything else?

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, and that's your problem to deal with, in case you haven't been keeping track. Where have I said the glass is empty? I don't hold out much confidence in social progress

That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts, and then building an opinion, which would be what "going with the eimpirical" would entail.

So you say.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
which is two steps forward and two steps back. You can neglect the latter if you like, but that's subjectivity, for ya. This thread is, from your perspective, all about lamenting the backward steps.

You're projecting here. How can I be neglecting the steps back, while from my perspective, being all about lamenting the backward steps ? You make no sense. You're the one refusing to see the steps forward, from your own admission, which disqualifies you from claiming you're going empirical.

So you say. I sympathize with your difficulties in mastering the difference between 'lamenting' and 'neglecting'.

Got anything else?

No, I think your lack of argument answers it all.

aban57 wrote:
No, I think your lack of argument answers it all.

Well, now you want arguments. I'm going with the empirical, so you should be all about presenting evidence for your view. But that will be selective attention, I'm just betting.

How is it that you don't see there's no conclusion to this discussion except your complaining about somebody's lack of argument? That means this is philosophy, and not science.

aban57 wrote:That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts

What fucking facts have you tried to present?

aban57 wrote:You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history

Yeah, facts. When you start listing them, what will you have? Will you have a model, or just selective attention to detail? That's how it goes with social observation.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
No, I think your lack of argument answers it all.

Well, now you want arguments. I'm going with the empirical, so you should be all about presenting evidence for your view. But that will be selective attention, I'm just betting.

How is it that you don't see there's no conclusion to this discussion except your complaining about somebody's lack of argument? That means this is philosophy, and not science.

aban57 wrote:That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts

What fucking facts have you tried to present?

aban57 wrote:You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history

Yeah, facts. When you start listing them, what will you have? Will you have a model, or just selective attention to detail? That's how it goes with social observation.

You're disengeniously trying to draw me into a discussion I'm not part of. All I was doing here, was to debunk your claim that hoping nothing from humanity is based on empirical evidence. That's all. This is not the realm of philosophy, but science. Your claim is utter bullshit, as proven by all social advancements in human history, which clearly prove that we're capable of doing better, which is the opposite of what you claim. Democracy, slavery, racism, homophobia, social security, unions, etc., advancements in all these topics made humans life better in general. Sure it doesn't touch everyone, it's not perfect, and some parts of the world are going backwards, but it's still better than it was before. And that's not subjective.