SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Bioshuffle posted:

Come on now. She did not just barely scrape by by the skin of her teeth. She served for seven more years. That's longer than a term for a member of the Senate, House of Representatives and the president. She proved those doubters wrong.

yeah she really showed all those doubters who suggested a Republican might replace her if she didn't retire while Dems still held the senate and the white house

# ? Sep 24, 2020 16:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:23

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Gerund posted:

The "whatever my activist issue", during a time of a rollback of human rights, has in part a speaking honestly about the foolish actions of the dead lady entirely because the source of my activism- the decades of pain and suffering- would be extended if someone were to repeat the actions of the foolish dead lady.

yeah I mean ultimately Hieronymous Alloy is right that we have to accept the events that have transpired and move forward, the past is past. But we certainly don't have to don't have to celebrate or even ignore that RBG gambled the future of the court (and America) so she could have a girl-power moment where the first woman president replaces a prominent woman justice.

That was a supremely lovely thing for her to do and we all have to suffer the consequences for it, and we should absolutely point out that it was a lovely thing for her to do so that nobody tries it again in the future.

History will not and should not look favorably on that call.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Sep 24, 2020

# ? Sep 24, 2020 17:07

FLIPADELPHIA: Apr 27, 2007; Heavy Shit; Grimey Drawer

Bioshuffle posted:

It's a real thing where cancer survivors run into roadblocks in their careers due to unfounded fears.

Turns out, these fears were 100% founded

# ? Sep 24, 2020 17:28

Sarcastro: Dec 28, 2000; Elite member of the Grammar Nazi Squad that

Paul MaudDib posted:

That was a supremely lovely thing for her to do and we all have to suffer the consequences for it, and we should absolutely point out that it was a lovely thing for her to do so that nobody tries it again in the future.

The key difference is the distinction between "that was a lovely thing she did" (true) and "she's a piece of poo poo" (gently caress off).

# ? Sep 24, 2020 19:59

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

Well idk if it's racist but it's incorrect to say Democrats did it: the guy who wrote the opinion was a Nixon appointment

Being appointed by a Democratic or Republican President does not automatically make you a "Democratic" or "Republican" Justice, which anyway isn't really a thing that exists in the same way as it does in the rest of the American political sphere. Justice Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, for instance.

That being said, you can't seriously be implying that Roe was somehow the product of judicial conservatism or judicial conservatives or a conservative legal doctrine of any kind.

# ? Sep 24, 2020 20:04

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

I mean the "going forward" question is, if Biden wins and there's a Democratic Senate, should Breyer retire? Or is it more important that he stick around to write spicy dissents once the Democrats lose power again?

I think it's absolutely fair to criticize RBG for not retiring when the Democrats could replace her. It was obviously something politically-engaged people were grappling with in 2013 (when Obama and Reid could have replaced her), since that's when there was a wave of pro- and anti-retirement articles about her, but it's also obviously something she rejected, and now we're paying the price for that. The big question going forward is, are the Democrats going to learn from this and use power while they have it the way the Republicans do, or are they going to hold on to principles like "Supreme Court justices should stick around as long as they want even if it means we lose their seat when they die in it" when that's now been proven to be a really stupid strategic move?

# ? Sep 24, 2020 20:09

Yuzenn: Mar 31, 2011; Be weary when you see oppression disguised as progression

The Spirit told me to use discernment and a Smith n Wesson at my discretion

Practice heavy self reflection, avoid self deception
If you lost, get re-direction

vyelkin posted:

I mean the "going forward" question is, if Biden wins and there's a Democratic Senate, should Breyer retire? Or is it more important that he stick around to write spicy dissents once the Democrats lose power again?

I think it's absolutely fair to criticize RBG for not retiring when the Democrats could replace her. It was obviously something politically-engaged people were grappling with in 2013 (when Obama and Reid could have replaced her), since that's when there was a wave of pro- and anti-retirement articles about her, but it's also obviously something she rejected, and now we're paying the price for that. The big question going forward is, are the Democrats going to learn from this and use power while they have it the way the Republicans do, or are they going to hold on to principles like "Supreme Court justices should stick around as long as they want even if it means we lose their seat when they die in it" when that's now been proven to be a really stupid strategic move?

I think that the political climate and norms are way different than before 2016 so i'm going to throw her a little bit of bail here.

However, saying you want to be the longest serving woman justice of all time before 2016 happens and then hitching your wagons on being replaced by Hillary (which i'm going to go out on a limb here and just think that's what she believed what her future would be) was an incredibly risky move that led us to our current situation. Could she had known this would happen, the eroding of all the norms and fascism taking hold this quickly? Nope. Could a octogenarian with years worth of cancer diagnoses realize that at some point she may leave the court not on her own terms, leading to a power struggle regardless of who was president? Absolutely. She should have weighed what she wanted to happen vs what could happen; the latter option having so many negative outcomes up to and including the end of the union , that alone should have made her hedge her bets.

She was a very smart woman and should have at least realized that if her gamble was wrong, that it could cause irreparable harm to everything she fought for. Nothing she did is irreversible by a conservative court backed by republican enablers and extremists. There is a level of hubris that she is guilty of having here by putting the prospects of her own legacy before what she was actually fighting for, in the end.

Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 24, 2020

# ? Sep 24, 2020 20:22

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Being appointed by a Democratic or Republican President does not automatically make you a "Democratic" or "Republican" Justice, which anyway isn't really a thing that exists in the same way as it does in the rest of the American political sphere. Justice Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, for instance.

That being said, you can't seriously be implying that Roe was somehow the product of judicial conservatism or judicial conservatives or a conservative legal doctrine of any kind.

The op claimed that Democrats imposed Roe on the country. That's just flat wrong sorry, split all the hairs you want, "Democrats" didn't do that.

Whether it was conservative or not eh you have to be careful about what you mean by conservatism. The economically conservative party of big business, the Republicans, didn't really give a poo poo about abortion at the time and was generally on the side of women's rights and desegregation because it was more palatable to northern business interests. Abortion was a Catholic thing to care about and they were mostly Democrats (note that Catholic Democrat Joe Biden criticized the decision at the time). From a small government conservative perspective, Roe recognized that individual rights don't have to be explicitly named in the constitution to exist and be recognized, and the decision certainly limited the power of government.

Yeah it didn't uphold traditional authority of the church but US conservatism doesn't necessarily care about that. Barry Goldwater, Mr Conservative if there ever was a conservative, loving hated the theocrats and moral majority types

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Sep 24, 2020

# ? Sep 24, 2020 20:32

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

The op claimed that Democrats imposed Roe on the country. That's just flat wrong sorry, split all the hairs you want, "Democrats" didn't do that.

I agree with this, and I should have read his statement more closely. I interpreted it as "liberals" rather than "Democrats."

# ? Sep 24, 2020 20:40

White Light: Dec 19, 2012

DandyLion posted:

Yeah, the scariest part is if you never spoke with him in private you would never know. He's a reasonable, well spoken, calm mild mannered man. I shudder to think of my doctor secretly harboring 'pray the sickness away' mentalities or political beliefs, even if they didn't prescribe to them in their own practice.

He's a young earth creationist, and he takes his kids/grandkids every year to the Creation Ark exhibit in KY because its that important to him. Of course he homeschooled all his kids with extreme fundamentalist Christian curriculum. I was over one day and cracked open one of the 'science' books he was teaching his 15 year old son with and in the part on environmental activism the book says that its Man's duty to use the earth however he wishes and with no consideration for anything else, as the Earth was a gift to man by God and to not do so is an affront to God (and if it seems harmful to the earth its no big deal because God will fix it).

Its just really so bizarre to me because he knows I'm a rabid liberal and yet he's always very nice/cordial/respectful around me (my wife says because I'm a man and he respects men no matter what). His library is filled to the top with Hannity esque books blatantly stating that liberals are the greatest threat to humanity and must be butchered without prejudice if America is to survive. Its really terrifying indoctrination.

Stop describing my father down to a fine science :gonk:

# ? Sep 24, 2020 23:21

NaanViolence: Mar 1, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Bioshuffle posted:

Her work ethic was nothing short of superhuman. She came to court a day after her husband passed away.

This sort of worship of the protestant work ethic is not admirable. It's worrisome and sad.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 03:16

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

NaanViolence posted:

This sort of worship of the protestant work ethic is not admirable. It's worrisome and sad.

Jewish work ethic, in this case.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 04:00

Vegetable: Oct 22, 2010

vyelkin posted:

I mean the "going forward" question is, if Biden wins and there's a Democratic Senate, should Breyer retire? Or is it more important that he stick around to write spicy dissents once the Democrats lose power again?

I think it's absolutely fair to criticize RBG for not retiring when the Democrats could replace her. It was obviously something politically-engaged people were grappling with in 2013 (when Obama and Reid could have replaced her), since that's when there was a wave of pro- and anti-retirement articles about her, but it's also obviously something she rejected, and now we're paying the price for that. The big question going forward is, are the Democrats going to learn from this and use power while they have it the way the Republicans do, or are they going to hold on to principles like "Supreme Court justices should stick around as long as they want even if it means we lose their seat when they die in it" when that's now been proven to be a really stupid strategic move?

The �going forward� question is not just about what Democrats should do, but also about what progressive Supreme Court justices should do. If Biden wins and Democrats reclaim the Senate, even if they end up not packing the court, should Breyer step the gently caress down? Yes.

Which is why this post-mortem of Ginsburg is not just petty and distasteful. It puts pressure on progressive Supreme Court justices to do the right thing in the future.

I bet Breyer�s now looking at his own legacy and wondering if he wants it dragged through the mud like Ginsburg. Well, hopefully, anyway.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 08:42

Fuschia tude: Dec 26, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019

Trapick posted:

Jewish work ethic, in this case.

You don't have to be protestant to buy into that pervasive mentality, any more than you have to be white to hold white supremacist beliefs.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 09:59

DandyLion: Jun 24, 2010; disrespectul Deciever

Fuschia tude posted:

You don't have to be protestant to buy into that pervasive mentality, any more than you have to be white to hold white supremacist beliefs.

Yeah I have lots of Jewish friends who are die hard Trump supporters.....

The idea that a religion or philosophy grants anyone anything other than a moniker needs to go.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 14:32

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

Fuschia tude posted:

You don't have to be protestant to buy into that pervasive mentality, any more than you have to be white to hold white supremacist beliefs.

Yeah, I was just goofing, as I imagine Ginsberg would have bristled at being called Protestant in any way.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 15:16

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1309371586395471872

# ? Sep 25, 2020 17:11

Sundae: Dec 1, 2005

If the intercept is posting the memo, I suppose we'll know exactly which staffer printed it / generated the PDF in the next half-hour or so. :v:

# ? Sep 25, 2020 17:28

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

None of these are news to Dem staffers, though? And they�re mostly �one weird trick to slow down the Senate-Republicans hate it!� type things that won�t work in practice. (There�s a few things in there that would work, particularly denial of UC, suggesting absence of a quorum, and the morning business/2hour rule, but most of them could be dealt with by Rs simply denying recognition to Dems to speak. And let�s not pretend McConnell wouldn�t be perfectly willing to do that.)

The issue has never been how to slow things down, it�s been �is it worth using this tactic?� with the recognition that it can and will be used in return once either side does it first.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 17:42

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Kalman posted:

None of these are news to Dem staffers, though? And they’re mostly “one weird trick to slow down the Senate-Republicans hate it!” type things that won’t work in practice. (There’s a few things in there that would work, particularly denial of UC, suggesting absence of a quorum, and the morning business/2hour rule, but most of them could be dealt with by Rs simply denying recognition to Dems to speak. And let’s not pretend McConnell wouldn’t be perfectly willing to do that.)

The issue has never been how to slow things down, it’s been “is it worth using this tactic?” with the recognition that it can and will be used in return once either side does it first.

Not seeing the big-brained institutionalist argument for being second to realize that the Senate is inherently obsctructional.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 17:52

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Gerund posted:

Not seeing the big-brained institutionalist argument for being second to realize that the Senate is inherently obsctructional.

The argument isn�t for being second, it is a belief that some things will not be introduced by either side. That belief might turn out to be incorrect, but it�s not clear that it is given the persistence of respect for things like district court blue slips and one week committee holdovers by both sides.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 18:06

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

galenanorth posted:

https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1309371586395471872

It's almost as if having a set of people from different backgrounds results in better ideas for the entire group!

# ? Sep 25, 2020 22:08

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

NYT: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg�s Seat on the Supreme Court
https://archive.is/4I2d1

# ? Sep 25, 2020 22:52

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

galenanorth posted:

NYT: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg�s Seat on the Supreme Court
https://archive.is/4I2d1

Lol that she only has 3 years experience as a Judge.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 22:54

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

She clerked for Scalia and considered him to be a mentor. To the extent that we have any record on her, she's an originalist and will probably be a reliable far-right vote on the social/religious issues.

She once wrote an article on a list of cases that the supreme court should never overturn, and specifically left Roe v. Wade off that list. She argued that the public needs to be nearly universally in favor of a decision in order for it to be irreversible under stare decisis, and said Roe v. Wade is too controversial to be considered immune to reversal. (She also did not include the recent 2nd amendment cases for probably the same reason)

She also publicly criticised the ACA decision and said that Roberts went too far to save it.

Thom12255 posted:

Lol that she only has 3 years experience as a Judge.

That is not a big deal in and of itself for me. Kagan was also mostly in academia and only briefly served as solicitor general. She was never a judge at all. So, both sides pretty much have one judge from the ivory tower.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 23:03

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Barrett's the one who doesn't think West Virginia should be a state, right?

# ? Sep 25, 2020 23:44

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Barrett's the one who doesn't think West Virginia should be a state, right?

wtf I love Barrett now

I hope she has the same opinion about the other 49

# ? Sep 25, 2020 23:48

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Barrett's the one who doesn't think West Virginia should be a state, right?

Hmmm, I�m liking this idea but really West Virginia should be �Virginia� and rebel Virginia isn�t a state.

# ? Sep 25, 2020 23:52

Enigma89: Jan 2, 2007; by CVG

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Barrett's the one who doesn't think West Virginia should be a state, right?

I guess she is technically correct?

# ? Sep 26, 2020 01:51

Youth Decay: Aug 18, 2015

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Barrett's the one who doesn't think West Virginia should be a state, right?

Also that the 14th amendment are unconstitutional.

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? gently caress if I know.

# ? Sep 26, 2020 02:21

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

Youth Decay posted:

Also that the 14th amendment are unconstitutional.

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? gently caress if I know.

Thomas B. Colby, Professor at George Washington University Law School posted:

The Southern states had been placed under military rule,
and were forced to ratify the Amendment�which they despised�as a
condition of ending military occupation and rejoining the Union. The
Amendment can therefore claim no warrant to democratic legitimacy
through original popular sovereignty

via the abstract of https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=nulr via https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-legal-theories-of-amy-coney-barrett-explained/ar-BB19o4Ab

which undersells it as "wasn't properly ratified" :vince:

# ? Sep 26, 2020 02:32

RoboChrist 9000: Dec 14, 2006; Mater Dolorosa

Wouldn't that mean more, if you want to be pedantic which since this is the law you do, that the amendment is illegitimate/not real? Since like by definition an amendment cannot be unconstitutional, but I suppose you could argue that one was never properly ratified and thus isn't actually an amendment, in which case laws building upon it and people punishing others for failing to uphold it would be unconstitutional.

# ? Sep 26, 2020 02:36

Trapick: Apr 17, 2006

You could argue it was ratified unconstitutionally, I guess would be one way of phrasing it?

# ? Sep 26, 2020 02:44

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

Amy Barret stands up in 1864:

"Abraham Lincoln is not President, the tyrannical Yankee Government is not letting the South vote!"

# ? Sep 26, 2020 02:54

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

Wouldn't that mean more, if you want to be pedantic which since this is the law you do, that the amendment is illegitimate/not real? Since like by definition an amendment cannot be unconstitutional, but I suppose you could argue that one was never properly ratified and thus isn't actually an amendment, in which case laws building upon it and people punishing others for failing to uphold it would be unconstitutional.

This is gonna be like those "tax resistors" who claim the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional isn't it

# ? Sep 26, 2020 03:43

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

She turns out to be the next Thomas and just a total nutter.

Her eyes scream "crazy scary person" to me for some reason

# ? Sep 26, 2020 05:02

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

FilthyImp posted:

She turns out to be the next Thomas and just a total nutter.

Her eyes scream "crazy scary person" to me for some reason

The Court remains 5-3, but every opinion comes with a crazy dissent everyone ignores

# ? Sep 26, 2020 05:37

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

Democracy Now interviewed a past member of cult People of Praise which Coney pledged lifetime loyalty to and its disturbing

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/coral_anika_theill_people_of_praise

quote:

CORAL ANIKA THEILL: Thank you for having me on your show, and I’m a fan of you and your show.
I was a member of the People of Praise — many call it a community, but I describe it as a cult — in Corvallis, Oregon. I experienced abuse and torture by my husband, Marty Warner, Independence, Oregon, and the cult leaders, as well as shunning, shaming and a smear campaign against me when I escaped and left. For safety, I legally changed my name, and I’ve lived under a state address protection program from my ex-husband for the past 20 years.

Even though I left the People of Praise cult, I didn’t have any rights, due to being married to my husband, who was a cult member. I was under the authority of my husband and his authoritarian head, Ed Brown. Under their authority, I was forced to attend meetings, but because I had defied leadership and their authority, I was forced to sit on the floor outside of their meetings in the hallway at the St. Mary’s Catholic Church. There’s dozens of witnesses that have seen how I was treated. What I would ask listeners to consider, even though they say this is a healthy group, to consider how I was treated and if this would be correct for Amy Barrett to be treated.
One time I had a miscarriage in 1984, and I had to have a D&C surgery. After I returned from the hospital, I was forced to attend a People of Praise women’s meeting, or handmaidens’ meetings.

I had a head that was also woman, besides my husband. They wanted to go shopping, and I couldn’t, due to returning from surgery and feeling weak. I left the meeting to go home and rest, as my doctor had ordered. I was met by my husband and forced into the car, kidnapped against my will, where I was driven to the cult leader’s home. I was interrogated until wee hours of the morning and psychologically abused. The next morning, the community was informed to shun me. I would never allow anyone to treat me this way today, and it traumatizes me to admit this was my life at that time.

They would call me mentally ill. And there was a time they had me under special counseling, under Father Charles Harris, who was the head leader of the Corvallis People of Praise branch. He was from South Bend.

But basically, there was just cruelty and bullying, and it was not much difference than the Jim Jones cult. I shared with Heidi that my story is very much like The Handmaid’s Tale series and the Netflix series 10-part documentary The Keepers.

Other things, yeah, there was always a list on my wall, a schedule, and men from the community would come unannounced to check on me to make sure I was on schedule and had done my chores. There was basically no privacy. And all of your personal — anything personal was given to your husband’s head also. I wasn’t allowed contraceptives and was supposed to have all the children God intended for me, no matter what my health was. I had had eight children and three miscarriages and D&C, often when my health was failing.

Well, I never wanted to join in the first place, but due to our marriage, I was forced to obey in all things through the duration of our 20-year marriage. But during the five years especially in the People of Praise cult, I was just forced to obey.

And yes, we had Sunday meetings. We had — women had Tuesday night meetings. The men had Thursday night meetings. There was community meetings to help people within the community. There’s not a lot of outside contact. In fact, our leaders would tell us how often we could see our family and our friends. And even the night my father died in 1984, he did not allow me to go see my father before he died. Those were just decisions made.

And as I will say, the bottom line was cruelty. And members are in spiritual bondage. Some are afraid to leave. I believe I was an example. Perpetrators will show people what happens to others when you say no. It’s very similar to domestic violence in how frightening of an experience it is to leave. And I was shunned in the community. And because the People of Praise community in Corvallis had a widespread respect within the community — many of their members are leaders in the local St. Mary’s Catholic Church — I was shunned even in stores. There was people who knew them. And so it was a very traumatic experience, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to your children when you left?

CORAL ANIKA THEILL: Well, when I left, eventually the community forced my husband to leave. It was kind of a long-term wait and see, but I would not go back in. And, of course, he was enraged that I would not obey, and he was looked upon as a husband that had a disobedient wife, and that was shameful to him, and then he was forced to leave. And it wasn’t long after that I also left the Catholic Church.

I honor everyone’s right to believe as they want, but when there is abuse, I believe you need to leave. That is with any toxic environment. And that helps the abusers know that you are not going to allow them to abuse you. And the church was of no help. I went to the priests there, and they were friends with Charles Harris, Father Charles Harris, so there was no help. And —

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Coral Anika Theill, I want to thank you very much for being with us, a former member of the People of Praise Catholic community for five years, from 1979 to ’84, forced to join the organization by her husband at the time. She documents her experience in her memoir.

Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 26, 2020

# ? Sep 26, 2020 06:01

Zedhe Khoja: Nov 10, 2017; sürgünden selamlar
yıkıcılar ulusuna

South Bend is such a cursed loving city.

# ? Sep 26, 2020 07:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:23

whos that broooown: Dec 10, 2009; 2024 Comeback Poster of the Year

Zedhe Khoja posted:

South Bend is such a cursed loving city.

Nah, they did it to themselves.

# ? Sep 26, 2020 07:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »