The Conservative Supreme Court may help doom the world

Only when it’s their side in power.

Catapostrophe.

Hmm, it doesn't look like Ray Gillette

Did @Paladin drink mercury as a child? And also as an adult? And also this week?

Lots of people in this thread trying to legitimately debate Paladin, when that's pointless.

He's not stupid, he's just a FYGM fascist supporting manchild whose entire political leanings are based on what will result in him having the most guns to play with and courts that will restrict the rights of women who would never touch him.

He's spent years telling us who he is.

Goes to show how far 'conservatism' has come.

Fucking Nixon created the EPA. Now we have the right actively cheering on coronavirus and climate change to 'own the libs.'

Propaganda is a hell of a drug. Gives you those endorphins you desperately crave when your existence is meaningless and you've been denied the company of women due to your odious personal views.

I prefer having a future on the planet.

Everything else is secondary, including the US Constitution.

Better to live a slave than die a free man, eh?

well, yeah... because the freedom of the market is more important than that of the people.

well, the difference is us lefties want everyone fed and housed, whereas you righties want everyone's food and homes.

This is just a bad take. Functioning in a society with rules and regulations does not a slave make.

But the only purpose of government is to provide security. That's literally why they exist. Nearly every person who has ever lived has lived in that situation, where they gave away a bit of their liberty for increased security.

You are saying that the Constitution is a death pact.

Yes, if the Constitution means we can't fight environmental catastrophe, which we are rapidly approaching, then it should be discarded and a new, sane document created.

But at the end of the day this doesn't even mean that. It means 6 hyperpartisan conservatives that don't represent the will of the people (5 of the 6 being appointed by POTUS who lost the popular vote) are going to rule on established law going back decades.

And it may very well cause massive death and destruction.

Not due to the Constitution and body of laws, but due to their partisan leanings.

The scientists are still screaming the warnings.

But the Red states get their money from oil so refuse to hear.

And their oil barons propagandize so people work to enrich them as oppose to save the planet.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...we-can-adapt-new-ipcc-report-warns-180979655/

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2022/3/1/22954531/climate-change-ipcc-wildlife-extinction

https://www.ceres.org/news-center/p...arkest-warning-yet-climate-crisis-ceres-urges

Okay, so help me out here, because there's a thing that I'm confused about. Elections are, almost always, popularity contests. It doesn't matter how qualified a candidate might be, if they're not as charismatic as their opponent, they're likely to lose. And I seem to recall that lots of folks here, regardless of where they might fall on the political spectrum, have been enraged when a politician (who often as not has similar political leanings as the poster) tries to introduce a bill that shows the politician has absolutely no understanding of the issues involved. This is particularly true when it comes to things like the tech sector. Think of things like encryption and Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act. In theory, since the folks who work for a particular government agency (say the FCC or the NSA) got their jobs because they had to prove that they were qualified to understand the things that the agency does (excluding those who are political appointees, of course), shouldn't they be the ones who handle the nitty-gritty details of how to do something? After all, the majority of politicians (in both parties) are lawyers.

Now, who do you want figuring out how to do a lifesaving medical procedure? A doctor, or a lawyer? I might be alone in this, but I want the doctor doing it, YMMV.

Yep. My only response to the points anyone raises are to childishly call them names.

Currently, I'm a fascist who's suggesting that policy that profoundly impacts the economy and the environment should be set by our elected officials, not by unaccountable bureaucrats. But I'm old school and believe in things like the republic, the Constitution, etc., etc.,...

You also support genocide, don't forget about that.

I expect I'm going to get a really weak definition of genocide here, but to what are you referring?

Extinction of the human species.

If you're referring to climate change, you're living in a fantasy world if you think it even remotely entails human extinction.

No just large swaths of it. But mass extinction is funnier.

No large swaths, neither. All of the worst effects of climate change are based on very unrealistic scenarios--RCP 8.5, anyone?--and assume no adaptation.

You'll die of old age long before climate change causes any large scale loss of life.

Climate change itself won't kill of humanity.

Global warfare that results from conflict caused by it however could very well do so.

That's not saying much. If he were to die tomorrow, it could easily be classified as old age.

No, it won't. If (and this is a big if) rising oceans threaten to inundate Miami, we're not going to nuke China over it. People will do what the Dutch did centuries ago: build some dikes.

And people in, say, 2100--and I mean all people everywhere--are going to be much wealthier than people today and will have little trouble adapting.

Fair point. I forgot.

I'm sorry, but ... what exactly makes you a slave in this scenario?

I realize you're not an American, but if you're dismissive of the Constitution, you are saying that its guarantees on our individual freedoms and its limits on state power are impediments to your plans. Your plans must therefore involve things those limits and guarantees would prevent.

So, yeah. Slaves.

I'm an American. I've spent, like, a cumulative total of three weeks outside this country in my entire life.

I am not, however, blinkered enough to think that everyone who lives in a country that doesn't have the U.S. Constitution is a slave.

Dude, slavery is a super oppressive institution that we’re definitely not living under. Call it many other things, but you’re doing a disservice to people under actual slavery to say this.

You and I don’t agree on much, but this I agree with.

100%. Especially when the parts of the US constitution being referenced were in place when there was literally constitutionally legal slavery.