|
raminasi posted:What makes you say this? And would the upcoming cases on the subject permit it? Multiple sitting justices have been very clear on wanting to ban abortion in its entirely. The upcoming cases allow it because they involve abortion and that's all they need to issue whatever they want w/r/t to abortion rights. If the majority issues a ruling that boils down to "the law is valid because abortion is murder, Roe was wrongly decided and life begins at conception" that's the end of abortion in the US for the foreseeable future. There is absolutely zero chance that anything comes out of Congress overturning the SCOTUS on this topic unless there is a massive political realignment in the US that sees a colossal shift to the left and the courts undergoing a massive (and overdue) restructuring and expansion of seats with a progressive POTUS and progressive Congressional majorities.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
I could be remembering something totally wrong, but I thought the case in question was about TRAP laws, so the more likely outcome would be a 5-4 (or 6-3, depending on where Gorsuch's weird libertarian streak goes) decision that technically leaves Roe v Wade in place, but allows states to make abortions essentially impossible to obtain by adding all kinds of ridiculous requirements to get one.
azflyboy fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Multiple sitting justices have been very clear on wanting to ban abortion in its entirely. I honestly don't think that the fucks on this court are willing to go that far in Legislating From The Bench, they've showing their yellow underbellies several times before this despite their 6-3 advantage and refused to go that far. I do think they're strongly thinking about overturning Roe though. And I can't completely dismiss the possibility of them going all the way to a total abortion ban. Its also worth considering the possibility they took this Blatantly Overturn Roe case to specifically not do it so they can continue to kill it by the death of a thousand cuts with their other decisions, like the one that's going after Fetal Viability that's also on the docket at the same time as this one. In fact that they took both of those cases might imply that that's exactly their plan. It would take a lot of the metaphorical heat off by reassuring a lot of dumb people that Everything Is Fine Now. We just don't know unfortunately. Other than the fact that this is almost certainly going to be really loving bad, and it just being a degree of how bad and what we have to try and get the Democratic Party to do about it once it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
They don’t have to win 2/3rds of the senate to have one of the best propaganda machines of all time allowing them to get 45% of the population to vote on any unqualified idiot with an R next to their name while actively loving these same voters over nonstop. There is some truly dark poo poo on the horizon for this country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
If Roe is overturned before the 2022 election democratic turnout will be through the roof and it will be 2018 all over again
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:If Roe is overturned before the 2022 election democratic turnout will be through the roof and it will be 2018 all over again Which is why it won't be "overturned" as such. The conservative justices are zealots, but they're not stupid (well, maybe Alito is).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:If Roe is overturned before the 2022 election democratic turnout will be through the roof and it will be 2018 all over again Except in all the red states that are making it exceedingly difficult for Dems to vote in, while having the full backing of the SCOTUS (and a Congress/WH that won't do poo poo about it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Which is why it won't be "overturned" as such. The conservative justices are zealots, but they're not stupid (well, maybe Alito is). Most of the Conservative justices are pretty clearly and demonstrably stupid. Roberts isn't. Beer and Handmaid have some of that "low cunning," you always hear about. The rest are bricks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Trump Justices just do whatever their heritage foundation tells them. Doesn’t matter if they’re individually smart or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Trump Justices just do whatever their heritage foundation tells them. Doesn’t matter if they’re individually smart or whatever. There is at least one extremely high profile counterexample to this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Most of the Conservative justices are pretty clearly and demonstrably stupid. Roberts isn't. Beer and Handmaid have some of that "low cunning," you always hear about. The rest are bricks. I was curious if there were any particular examples that you thought were especially demonstrative of their idiocy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
What does this thread think about the eviction moratorium? Does the ruling really mean it would be illegal for the Biden or the CDC to extend it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:What does this thread think about the eviction moratorium? Does the ruling really mean it would be illegal for the Biden or the CDC to extend it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
loving do it anyways and let the conservatives on the SCOTUS be the villains. Well, and Congress for loving off for recess without addressing the issue in a meaningful fashion because the Dem leadership can't help but live by the mantra of "let's just be mostly lovely instead of completely lovely like the GOP."
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Yeah mechanically it's not clear to me how they could. The current Supreme Court seems rather uninterested in conducting emergency sessions even for something like an election where it's either act now or do nothing. It sounds like they gave a pretty soft no to this which means that at most they'd just wag their finger at Biden next session, by which point there might not even be an executive order because Congress would have found a more permanent solution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
If he thinks genuinely that's the first time that someone swore at him during proceedings, he truly is a fuckwit
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Don't let reality get in the way of making a mountain out of a molehill. If people just let poo poo go there would be no need for lawyers
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Lmao yeah gently caress that dude what an rear end in a top hat. loving Barristers. I've heard worse from my own clients.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
I have a hard time believing anyone who has ever litigated a case would actually care in the slightest about being called a fuckwit. Pissing people off probably means I'm doing my job. Otoh performative indignation is also part of doing the job. The barrister didn't care but it was useful to pretend he did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I have a hard time believing anyone who has ever litigated a case would actually care in the slightest about being called a fuckwit. Pissing people off probably means I'm doing my job. This is a misunderstanding of Australian Barrister culture. Most of them believe the bullshit of decorum and most definately would have been insulted by the comments and most definately would have wanted to know who said it. They believe they are special snowflakes who know the law and assist the court with their incredible intellects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:This is a misunderstanding of Australian Barrister culture. Most of them believe the bullshit of decorum and most definately would have been insulted by the comments and most definately would have wanted to know who said it. Seriously? Jesus, what a fuckwit. And more importantly what a vulnerability. If you let someone make you angry when you don't want to be angry, you're handing them control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lawcrimenews/status/1423056152896720897
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1422970804329975810?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Just loving burn this country to the ground already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Just loving burn this country to the ground already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Not surprising when you can compare him to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Barrett. He looks like the perfect centrist judge compared to those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
what the ever living gently caress? he just carved another giant crippling chunk out of the vra after already severely hobbling it. i blame the media coverage of the court for this
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:You tried that last summer. gently caress off you worthless Nazi trash. GhostofJohnMuir posted:what the ever living gently caress? he just carved another giant crippling chunk out of the vra after already severely hobbling it. i blame the media coverage of the court for this This is entirely it. Roberts is constantly painted as the moderating voice of the court which is only technically true in the sense that the court has moved so far to the right that the guy whose lifelong goals include a total rollback of the last 60+ years of Civil Rights isn't as far right as the other 5 conservatives on the court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Yeah, both sides are thinking "he hasn't fully remade the country in his image yet" and that explains both answers
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
yeah this tracks, Republicans punish any deviation from orthodoxy, Dems will grovel before you if you sound smart and use nice words while you're overturning the voting rights act ilkhan posted:You tried that last summer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:yeah this tracks, Republicans punish any deviation from orthodoxy, Dems will grovel before you if you sound smart and use nice words while you're overturning the voting rights act So you can obviously provide quotes of Democratic politicians grovelling before Roberts, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So you can obviously provide quotes of Democratic politicians grovelling before Roberts, then. What's this have to do with that survey?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Roberts works extremely hard to obfuscate his bullshit as just the reasonable impartiality of the courts, disentangled from the the left-right push and pull. He's also now the "swing vote" on the court ( ) and has a couple cases where he's jumped ship to back the liberal wing so he can narrow the ruling. It makes sense that to a relatively un-engaged observer he appears as a reasonable moderating force for the court, holding back the frothing madness of Trump's SCOTUS picks. Any Dem actually paying attention to rulings though who has a positive opinion of Roberts needs to get their head dunked into a toilet lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Roberts works extremely hard to obfuscate his bullshit as just the reasonable impartiality of the courts, disentangled from the the left-right push and pull. He's also now the "swing vote" on the court ( He's not even the swing vote anymore lmao, he became the swing vote when Kennedy retired because Kennedy was the most centrist of the Republican judges, but thanks to RBG and Diane Feinstein there are only three Democratic appointees on the court now, so Gorsuch or Kavanaugh are the swing votes depending on the day This is why Roe v Wade is expected to be overturned, Roberts changed sides and upheld it when he became the swing vote, now it's down to Judge Beer because Gorsuch is a textual literalist weirdo which is occasionally good but probably not good here. Like Judge Beer did the "change sides to narrow the ruling" thing on the eviction moratorium VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What's this have to do with that survey? I dunno, that's why I'm asking for "grovelling" evidence .
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I dunno, that's why I'm asking for "grovelling" evidence . "grovelling" was a colorful turn of phrase to describe Democrats in that survey approving of the guy loving over voting rights and killing their party's electoral prospects
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"grovelling" was a colorful turn of phrase to describe Democrats in that survey approving of the guy loving over voting rights and killing their party's electoral prospects So can you link the crosstabs on those questions specifically addressing your now repeated claims Democratic voters approve of Robert's VRA decisions please? Or is this just more "colorful turn of phrase"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So can you link the crosstabs on those questions specifically addressing your now repeated claims Democratic voters approve of Robert's VRA decisions please? Or is this just more "colorful turn of phrase"? This is an aggressive misreading of that post, stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is an aggressive misreading of that post, stop. What about "Dems will grovel before you if you sound smart and use nice words while you're overturning the voting rights act" is there to misread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:14
|
|
