|
Eiba posted:Alternately you could try to start up a third party. Preferably on a local level or in congress before you shoot for the presidency and gently caress everything up in our dumb system. Back to topic, though, the court has yet to rule on modern voting system reform (eg ranked choice voting)
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Devorum posted:At least four sitting Justices fit that description, possibly five. Comedy option off the ropes: Marbury
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:53
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The Democrats could pass a law to make Roe v Wade the statutory rule nationwide on any given day, as has been the case for years. You can ask your least favorite Democrats why they aren't doing this! I know I have! The answers may shock you! I was being sarcastic. Hence my second sentence. This is on them. If you have the power to stop a crime from happening and do nothing to stop it, you bear responsibility for that crime.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This was foreseeable! Nevertheless, Democrats did not use their political power to head it off with legislation, over the course of decades. Even if there was some federal law to the effect that states cannot limit abortion rights, I'm sure the court, as currently constituted, would have no trouble issuing a ruling that "We held the 10th amendment up to the light and tilted it a certain way, and it says that law is unconstitutional." Besides, the last time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority when they could enact such a law would have been during the first year of Obama's first term, before any of this was on the radar.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:05
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Besides, the last time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority when they could enact such a law would have been during the first year of Obama's first term, before any of this was on the radar. This is not true. Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (a law to codify abortion as a basic right) as a senator in the lead-up to his presidential campaign, and campaigned on that record of support for it. It's ridiculous to suggest it was an issue that wasn't on the radar.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is not true. Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (a law to codify abortion as a basic right) as a senator in the lead-up to his presidential campaign, and campaigned on that record of support for it. It's ridiculous to suggest it was an issue that wasn't on the radar. Look, no one could have predicted the GOP would make destroying Roe v Wade a major goal. They only started talking about it like this month. It's not like they've been talking about it for longer than many of us have even been alive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
Having Bob Casey Jr. at the DNC in 2008 was a big controversy, and seen as a reversal of his father's pointed rejection in 1992! (Bob Casey Sr. is the Casey of Planned Parenthood v Casey.) Everyone seems to have forgotten the recent past! BTW Bob Casey Jr. is still in office and is still a Democrat and is still anti-abortion, and was a speaker in 2016 as well. This is hardly dead and buried! Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 09:24 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It would be nice if we could keep the tedious voting discussions to places that aren't the SCOTUS thread. Lol yea dude the SCOTUS ain’t politics. It’s magic wizard hour with your friends: the worst people you can imagine and their cool mascot, the corpse of all mankind made manifest as we slouch into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:If you really want your political views represented, the best way is to run as a third-party candidate expressing their exact opposite and spoil the votes of your opponents. they haven't and won't, nor will they need to. the courts may be many things, but they are not fast, but that doesn't matter. tossing electoral reforms in the bin is healthily within the capabilities of our democratically-elected representatives, as lord master of the democratic machine handily demonstrated a few years back, even before he was worried about lockdown backlash tarnishing his presidential chances. changes to electoral politics are more than threatening enough to the entities that currently dominate them for the courts to bother with sure, sure, im ignoring all the "actually gerrymandering and voter suppression are fine and good!" rulings, but those at least benefit one extant party or the other, which i can't imagine ranked choice or similar doing
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
Carew posted:These people do not believe in anything. Her mother, someone with actual power, is putting in work to support the anti-abortion Cuellar over the pro-choice Cisneros, while she wastes her time scolding leftists on twitter for failing to stem the tide of misogyny. Incredible. Her mother was also the one who pushed for removing abortion care from the ACA at the behest of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Devorum posted:At least four sitting Justices fit that description, possibly five. Casey necessarily, as its based on Roe as precedent. I expect Lawrence v Texas to fall before Obergefell, as it's harder to make a sex discrimination argument against it. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 09:49 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2022: Rejoice, no more reproductive health scares. Can't be reproductive health scared if there's no more reproductive health.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 10:03
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2022: The Most Disappointed Running Of The Interns Yet
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
It's fitting that writing up the ultimate triumph of the conservative legal movement is handed off to the dumbest Supreme Court justice.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SallyLHudson/status/1521298661040439296?s=20&t=W1mSiNjo5vZuLeoUBBA4mQ
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It's fitting that writing up the ultimate triumph of the conservative legal movement is handed off to the dumbest Supreme Court justice. If only this was the last terrible thing this gaggle of liches had in store. But since Alito writes like a barely literate sophist, maybe we'll get some future jurisprudence that uses his lovely argumentation in favor of something actually good -- like how Scalia thinking that gays were icky kinda paved the way to gay marriage legalization.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:And they would have continued to fail had she not been so selfish. She knew what was at stake, and didn’t care, because her she was a self-centered prick who cared more about being an icon for women, than doing everything in her power to protect women’s rights. Agreed, she is at best a cautionary tale.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:More people are going to vote against the Dems because of inflation and high gas prices than those who will vote against the GOP because of this ruling that everyone knew was coming the moment RBG died. A few pages back, but maybe that’s why the GOP is making this play now? Dipshits always vote economy over everything else, even if current inflation and gas prices are a global phenomenon and not really tied to anything Biden has done. The inevitable result of the upcoming midterm is frightening. Gin_Rummy fucked around with this message at 13:45 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment? We won gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:04
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:We won gently caress you. I don't know who this "we" is, but overturning Roe v Wade is in line with the believe that the 10th does delegate abortion issues to the states. cr0y posted:Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment? According to Roe v Wade the constitution already enshrined a right to abortion, therefore the 10th amendment would obviously not apply.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
Gin_Rummy posted:A few pages back, but maybe that’s why the GOP is making this play now? Dipshits always vote economy over everything else, even if current inflation and gas prices are a global phenomenon and not really tied to anything Biden has done. Eh, the death cultists on the court will obviously try to finesse the exact timing of releasing the opinion as best they can (or at least that was undoubtedly the plan until it leaked), but the broader timing of this case is driven mostly by the Right gaining a 6-3 majority. As soon as that looked like it was happening, the worst state legislatures spun up a bunch of test cases and started firing them off. This outcome was only a matter of time-- as soon as a sufficiently appealing case found its way before SCOTUS, Roe was going to be dead.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Another fun question is why it's acceptable to enforce explicitly Christian religious opinion as the law of the land despite the 1st.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment? Alito's dumbfuck opinion basically says that there literally has to be the words "you have the right to X" for it to be protected by the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Piell posted:Alito's dumbfuck opinion basically says that there literally has to be the words "you have the right to X" for it to be protected by the Constitution. Even better: it either has to have those words, or it has to be "deeply rooted" in tradition and history. No guesses what kind of lovely things aren't set out by the Constitution but are rooted in American tradition... Liquid Communism posted:Another fun question is why it's acceptable to enforce explicitly Christian religious opinion as the law of the land despite the 1st.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
The historical argument about abortion was stupid as gently caress when Scalia made it so I'm glad the dumbest justice is repeating it to really nail how wrong it was.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Another fun question is why it's acceptable to enforce explicitly Christian religious opinion as the law of the land despite the 1st. Ironically, Alito's argument in his reasoning for why the 14th doesn't apply to abortion is basically a stunning endorsement of why it would apply here. As a culture, through our history with common law as the basis for our legal system, it can be (badly) concluded that the right for people to impose Christianity on others despite their protestations is 100% in line with our cultural roots, and therefore entirely constitutional. cr0y posted:Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment? Overturning Roe basically does turn it over to the 10th, so the states would then be free to ban abortion or not, as they saw fit. But Alito's argument is extensive and sets the groundwork for why it should be banned at the federal level, so it's not clear that they would stop with simply a repeal instead of making it unconstitutional to get an abortion under any circumstance. e: vvv I don't agree with his reasoning, but yeah, basically. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 14:29 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Ironically, Alito's argument in his reasoning for why the 14th doesn't apply to abortion is basically a stunning endorsement of why it would apply here. As a culture, through our history with common law as the basis for our legal system, it can be (badly) concluded that the right for people to impose Christianity on others despite their protestations is 100% in line with our cultural roots, and therefore entirely constitutional. If we're going by that measure, chattel slavery and racial segregation are both on the menu too, you realize. I'm sure Alito does, and is quite proud of himself.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Can someone give me a little bit of background so that I can educate myself as to why this is not predicated by the 10th amendment? Griswold v Connecticut, a case predicated on whether or not a state had the right to prohibit birth control, found that the Constitution includes an unenumerated right to privacy, essentially because substantial portions of the Bill of Rights only make sense if the people who wrote them were building them on the idea of an assumed right to privacy. A lot of subsequent cases that have expanded people's rights have been built on that finding, including Roe (abortion), Lawrence (homosexuality), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Alito's draft opinion implies that all those rights could be similarly challenged because they aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution: quote:Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turner v. Saftey, 482 U. S. 78 (1987); the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); the right to reside with relatives, Moore v. Fast Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one's children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1925); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985), Washington. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342U. S. 165 (1952). Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to marry a person of the same sex). See Brieffor Respondents 18; Brief for United Statesas Amicus Curiae 23-24. Alito goes on to claim that abortion is distinct from those cases because it involves "potential life" and therefore a "critical moral question" not touched on by the other cases based on the unenumerated right to privacy. But the writing is on the wall when he says that allowing a broad "right to autonomy" even on "moral questions" isn't Constitutionally protected and that "none of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history," implying that the 5-4 majority would be open to arguments that all of those cases predicated on the right to privacy and autonomy were also wrongly decided from the start. If all you do is read the text of the Constitution and say that the word abortion isn't there so therefore the 10th amendment means abortion is a matter for the states, you're missing over a century of context clearly establishing that the Constitution protects more than just the words on the page, all of which is now being called into question by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:But Alito's argument is extensive and sets the groundwork for why it should be banned at the federal level, so it's not clear that they would stop with simply a repeal instead of making it unconstitutional to get an abortion under any circumstance. And, in fact, anyone who’s interacted with the anti-choice crowd for any amount of time will tell you that they have absolutely zero interest in stopping at the borders of whatever states they get, or with just abortion. They want to ban abortion, contraception, and probably divorce nationwide, and they’re persistent, patient, and focused enough to try, even if it takes a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
raminasi posted:And, in fact, anyone who’s interacted with the anti-choice crowd for any amount of time will tell you that they have absolutely zero interest in stopping at the borders of whatever states they get, or with just abortion. They want to ban abortion, contraception, and probably divorce nationwide, and they’re persistent, patient, and focused enough to try, even if it takes a long time. Party of small government
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
raminasi posted:And, in fact, anyone who’s interacted with the anti-choice crowd for any amount of time will tell you that they have absolutely zero interest in stopping at the borders of whatever states they get, or with just abortion. They want to ban abortion, contraception, and probably divorce nationwide, and they’re persistent, patient, and focused enough to try, even if it takes a long time. This is why I don't buy arguments that this decision would be particularly galvanizing for Democrats, because it could well be equally (or more) galvanizing for Republicans who can now argue that they're halfway to the actual goal of banning abortion nationwide, and they need to continue the push to achieve one or more of three things: 1) a SCOTUS decision overturning blue-state abortion laws on the basis of fetal personhood, 2) a federal law explicitly criminalizing abortion nationwide, 3) a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks they will stop at the borders of states with a Republican trifecta instead of mobilizing even harder to push abortion bans from coast to coast is mistaken. And even once they do that, they'll keep pushing because they have proven that their strategy of dominating the courts works to cement their reactionary agenda, so why would they stop at abortion when they could keep repealing rights forever?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Party of small government A government so small it fits in your bedroom.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is why I don't buy arguments that this decision would be particularly galvanizing for Democrats, because it could well be equally (or more) galvanizing for Republicans who can now argue that they're halfway to the actual goal of banning abortion nationwide, and they need to continue the push to achieve one or more of three things: 1) a SCOTUS decision overturning blue-state abortion laws on the basis of fetal personhood, 2) a federal law explicitly criminalizing abortion nationwide, 3) a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks they will stop at the borders of states with a Republican trifecta instead of mobilizing even harder to push abortion bans from coast to coast is mistaken. And even once they do that, they'll keep pushing because they have proven that their strategy of dominating the courts works to cement their reactionary agenda, so why would they stop at abortion when they could keep repealing rights forever? It honestly blows my mind that people think this will somehow boost the resolve of Democrats. Of course, there were people in this very thread that previously said SCOTUS wouldn't repeal Roe, so....
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Republicans will be pumped they finally got a MASSIVE win like this. They will be happy, energized, and ready to take on the next thing. It might "boost the resolve" of Dems, but giving the christian fascists their literal biggest carrot is gonna get them real pumped to immediately start going harder on--politically and physically- gay and trans people, and people of color
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
the yeti posted:It might "boost the resolve" of Dems, but giving the christian fascists their literal biggest carrot is gonna get them real pumped to immediately start going harder on--politically and physically- gay and trans people, and people of color Especially with the framework in the Alito decision.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:A government so small it fits in your bedroom. The goal for the last couple of decades has been government that can fit inside a uterus, but I'm sure the GOP can be talked into expanding government to be big enough to fit into a bedroom once they're done making sure women don't have rights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
The theocrats already vote anyway. That's how we got in this situation to begin with. The concern that it may shock people out of their complacency is why there is so much faux outrage on the right RN about someone having the temerity to leak the decision. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Thank you all, now I have some stuff to Google.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:When/if we learn the how and why of the leak, the calculi of each of the people involved are going to be extremely interesting. I hope the leak came directly from Breyer himself as a gently caress You to the conservatives on this ruling. Vox Nihili posted:Give it a few months and New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine will be on that list as well NC as well. The GOP is *extremely* good at winning targeted state-level elections and going in day 1 with piles of (ALEC-crafted) legislation read to go. Devorum posted:What's going to fall next? Casey? Obergefell? Griswold? Yes. Cease to Hope posted:That's probably going to depend on the specific wording of whatever ruling ends up handed down. Some people were arguing that Alito's wording leaves open the possibility of later striking down pro-abortion laws that place insufficient emphasis on preserving the rights of a fetus, but that's a hypothetical built on a hypothetical. It's really not a hypothetical when Alito (among others) has called for banning abortion wholesale. Make no mistake, that is coming and the only question is just when they'll be given the case intended to effect this. You can be absolutely certain that the legal challenges to give this opportunity are already in the works.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's really not a hypothetical when Alito (among others) has called for banning abortion wholesale. Make no mistake, that is coming and the only question is just when they'll be given the case intended to effect this. You can be absolutely certain that the legal challenges to give this opportunity are already in the works. My expectation is that the right is preemptively preparing legal challenges to blue state abortion laws to argue fetal personhood in front of the 5-4 Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:22
|
|