|
Blind Rasputin posted:It’s a weird game to me the GOP is playing. Abortion and pro-life is the single most powerful voting choice that the GOP has been using to gaslight and incentivize their own voters for the last 30 years. Take that away and… take a huge, huge point of existence away for them. Sure, they could move on to anti-gay marriage and so on like many suggest but I think I’m actuality those Supreme Court decisions are far too fresh to be overturned and that’s not actually that realistic. I think the end result of overturning Roe could literally be a loss of one of the most powerful voting points the GOP uses to motivate its voters to the polls. They're just gonna move to racism or gay stuff next. Or hormonal birth control. Or IUDs. Maybe even condoms, who knows. They're vocal about it for gods sakes. We know exactly what their plans are. Anyway, current court's 6-3 right? Just a staggering half century of the "good* guys" getting their asses creamed *lol
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:It’s a weird game to me the GOP is playing. Abortion and pro-life is the single most powerful voting choice that the GOP has been using to gaslight and incentivize their own voters for the last 30 years. Take that away and… take a huge, huge point of existence away for them. Because they won’t stop there. They spent 50 years planning this and now they have a mechanism to just press the I win button on every federal law. Federal ban of abortion and birth control, Gay and trans rights will be next to keep their base happy, probably immigrants next, and during this they’ll continue dismantling any remaining public services for their donors.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
Yeah Roe v Wade is pretty much the bat signal for 'we can now begin to remake things in earnest' rather than the finish line. https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1521304125874614274?cxt=HHwWhMC9odqC4ZwqAAAA https://twitter.com/nickmartin/status/1521555176515014656
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
Had a friend argue with me told me there's no way. Utterly flabbergasted though idkw; big fan of Joe Rogan
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:15
|
|
|
at the rate we're going we're going to need a John Brown.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:19
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Had a friend argue with me told me there's no way. Utterly flabbergasted though idkw; big fan of Joe Rogan Was your same friend like mine that said "they'd never end the DREAM act" "they'd never overturn RvWade" "they'd never try to overturn a fair election" etc etc etc
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
This isn't the finish line it's the starting gun. The fascists now have an eternal veto on any future legislation they don't like and full capability to reshape any existing laws the way they want. The supreme court knows their job and they'll invent whatever legal Calvinball bullshit they need to.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
Maybe next time they take the presidency and the congress they'll expand the court and make their lead even more comical. Not that they'd need to, since you can win just as much with 5 (6?) as you can with more!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Yeah Roe v Wade is pretty much the bat signal for 'we can now begin to remake things in earnest' rather than the finish line. Sullivan is the free speech/free press case on defamation of a public official. quote:The underlying case began in 1960 when The New York Times published a full-page advertisement by supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama, for their mistreatment of civil rights protesters.The ad had several inaccuracies regarding facts such as the number of times King had been arrested during the protests, what song the protesters had sung, and whether students had been expelled for participating. Based on the inaccuracies, Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan sued the Times in the local county court for defamation. After the judge ruled the advertisement's inaccuracies were defamatory per se, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in damages. e.e.lol, quote:In January 2021, a judge dismissed a lawsuit Brimelow brought against The New York Times, ruling that his being called a "white nationalist" was not defamatory. joat mon fucked around with this message at 14:26 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/pandemic-killed-15m-people-in-first-2-years-who-excess-death-study-finds/ WHO study on excess deaths. Projects with good statistical confidence excess deaths of 13.3 to 16.6 million over the last 2 years. Covid official reports only account for 5.4 mil
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:It’s a weird game to me the GOP is playing. Abortion and pro-life is the single most powerful voting choice that the GOP has been using to gaslight and incentivize their own voters for the last 30 years. Take that away and… take a huge, huge point of existence away for them. Sure, they could move on to anti-gay marriage and so on like many suggest but I think I’m actuality those Supreme Court decisions are far too fresh to be overturned and that’s not actually that realistic. I think the end result of overturning Roe could literally be a loss of one of the most powerful voting points the GOP uses to motivate its voters to the polls. There is no such thing as "too new to overturn" - the argument is literally that longstanding judgements should remain in place because society has adjusted to them. A new decision bares much less consideration with respect to stare decisis. Also rolling back the civil rights battle 70 years plays into the republicans hand perfectly - you give your voters what they want while forcing progressives to fight another civil rights struggle, all as you evade further regulation or any real new environmental law's. Its win-win-win for them and they know it. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 15:30 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:There is no such thing as "too new to overturn" - the argument is literally that longstanding judgements should remain in place because society has adjusted to them. A new decision bares much less consideration with respect to stare decisis. I don't. When it's an old decision they don't like, then they'll Calvinball themselves in to whatever bullshit sounds good on paper then go right ahead and do what they want. Rowe is over 50 years old. Zero fucks are given. They don't like it, they'll overturn it. You don't spend generations building a political super weapon like this then only use it once and call it a job well done. More is coming and it will be worse.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Folks, it’s easy and it just makes sense In hindsight, I probably should've known that dessert drinks and water fowls were involved. https://twitter.com/katienotopoulos/status/1522602916170899459
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Is the issue that it was fake altogether? Because I don't think anyone was expecting someone posting that earnestly about cryptocurrency to not be an extremely online racist, misogynistic edgelord?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tulpengenieter/status/1522206334543826944?t=ItLMTf82kXPF6g-03D3Tvw&s=09 This is all I see now when people talk about NFTs
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Actually surprised the margin of error in the US given how political some states have been. Indias difference is not surprising.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Is there a good reason or explanation why the supreme court is the way it is? It just seems absurd that you can have a court ruling on things like it does that you can stack with people who will rule your way. It just doesn't seem possible or reasonable, and the Wikipedia stuff is too long winded to make sense to me. Or is the issue really that the constitution is what they look to an can choose to interpret like the bible, which is to say however they want? Sorry if I don't reply right away either I only tend to post/read this morning and evening.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
LoudPipesSaveLives posted:Or is the issue really that the constitution is what they look to an can choose to interpret like the bible, which is to say however they want? Pretty much this.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
McNally posted:Pretty much this. You could definitely look at it this way. Liberal Christianity began getting a hold in the 19teens, came into its strength in the 50s and 60s and then began to be eclipsed by Neo-Orthodoxy in the 70s and 80 that became increasingly revanchist as it gained sway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
McNally posted:Pretty much this. That sucks, so it's unfixable then.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You could definitely look at it this way. Liberal Christianity began getting a hold in the 19teens, came into its strength in the 50s and 60s and then began to be eclipsed by Neo-Orthodoxy in the 70s and 80 that became increasingly revanchist as it gained sway. To be fair, church membership is also waning: https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
LoudPipesSaveLives posted:That sucks, so it's unfixable then. The law is what the Supreme Court more or less says it is. If Congress doesn't like it, they can impeach the justices, re-pass the laws better-phrased, repeal laws, or outright increase court size. If the public doesn't like it, they can elect a President that will contest Supreme Court rulings and/or only nominate judges/SC justices that rule a certain way. If the states don't like it, 2/3rds of states can propose a constitutional amendment (or Congress). It's a nice, beautiful, delicate dance that leads to complete gridlock and corruption if enough of one party grabs any of it to throw off the balance. And modern political propaganda basically guarantees it. https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/1522724746093285380 Law is fake, and your wife is crazy, you dumbfuck.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Exactly what I thought of.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
Facebook hired a bunch of people, got them to relocate and then fired them before they started on their first day lol.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
SCOTUS is trash built in a completely different age and it can't be burned down soon enough. It can only act to resist change by declaring EOs and laws unconstitutional, it can't rewrite laws to improve them or the country and its citizens. At least the legislature has to stand for election. They want to preach all about their nonpartisanship, impartiality, collegial relations, and code but they are all full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
She was in recruiting too so my sympathy is low. But lol at relocating for a job in tyool 2022.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:She was in recruiting too so my sympathy is low. But lol at relocating for a job in tyool 2022. Lol just image how hosed she is after signing a lease in the Bay Area thinking she was getting meta money
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
Yup, she's fuuuucked
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/1522724746093285380 Forget crazy, his wife was trying to undermine the peaceful transition of power - a basic prerequisite for a functioning democracy. Literally eroding a fundamental institution of the country.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
LoudPipesSaveLives posted:Is there a good reason or explanation why the supreme court is the way it is? It just seems absurd that you can have a court ruling on things like it does that you can stack with people who will rule your way. It just doesn't seem possible or reasonable, and the Wikipedia stuff is too long winded to make sense to me. Or is the issue really that the constitution is what they look to an can choose to interpret like the bible, which is to say however they want? Everything conservatives say in public serves the same purpose as a mugger asking you to hold their hat or telling you you've got something on your shirt: To distract or confuse you long enough to hit you and take your poo poo. If you waste your time engaging with their arguments or trying to counter them you've already lost. It's all Calvinball. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 03:51 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Or to loosely paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "This constitution was the best half-rear end bandaid we could get everyone to sign off on without a round of duels. Burn it down, kill your parents, do better"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:The law is what the Supreme Court more or less says it is. If Congress doesn't like it, they can impeach the justices, re-pass the laws better-phrased, repeal laws, or outright increase court size. If the public doesn't like it, they can elect a President that will contest Supreme Court rulings and/or only nominate judges/SC justices that rule a certain way. If the states don't like it, 2/3rds of states can propose a constitutional amendment (or Congress). So none of those will happen and USA will continue to get worse, got it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
The first thing every key D senator required to save this did before even hemming and hawing was announce they wouldn’t resort to ending the filibuster or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
I'm sure they'll ask what Jed Bartlett would do and figure this out
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:I'm sure they'll ask what Jed Bartlett would do and figure this out "Save us, Aaron Sorkin!" (he nods smugly, grabs a kilo of pure Bolivian flake, ODs, and dies) "Ah, well then."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
LoudPipesSaveLives posted:Is there a good reason or explanation why the supreme court is the way it is? It just seems absurd that you can have a court ruling on things like it does that you can stack with people who will rule your way. It just doesn't seem possible or reasonable, and the Wikipedia stuff is too long winded to make sense to me. Or is the issue really that the constitution is what they look to an can choose to interpret like the bible, which is to say however they want? The shortest explanation is that the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to declare laws "unconstitutional" and thus null and void very early in their existence, and the specific circumstances of the case made it politically inexpedient to push back against them, so the Supreme Court ended up far, *far* more powerful than they were originally created to be. (For the relevant case, look up "Marburry vs. Madison". To look up what powers the constitution has actually delegated to the Supreme Court, just read Article III. It isn't much!) Also, if you think the current court is bad, look up the Lochner Era. This was a period of ~40 years where the court was controlled by what we would now describe as insane libertarians, and spent a significant amount of time knocking down any economic legislation that crossed their docket - from minimum wages to child labor laws. This continued right up into the 1930s when they started striking down New Deal legislation, and only ended after Roosevelt torched much of his political goodwill in an effort to stuff the court full of new appointees that would rule in his favor. (Whether the court switched their approach in direct response to Roosevelt's threats or simply because he managed to appoint enough new justices the old-fashioned way is... debated). As to how this situation has lasted so long, the court has mostly managed over the centuries to remain respectful of precedent and broadly respectable, so it's easiest just to abide by their rulings and try to shove in your own guys rather than risk losing a massive political fight to try and change the status quo. Off the top of my head, there's really only three exceptions to this: Jackson ignoring the court's ruling so he could commit genocide against the Cherokee (look up the Trail of Tears), Lincoln effectively telling Chief Justice Roger Taney (the author of the Dredd Scott decision) to pound sand during the Civil War, and FDR's attempt to pack the court. In the first two cases, it worked because public opinion was broadly in favor of the President's actions. In the latter, it failed miserably and splintered the Democratic Party, resulting in huge losses in the '38 midterms (the Democrats lost 8 Senate seats, 81 House seats, and 12 governorships) anyway this is all to say that anyone who tells you "this is what the founders intended" is spewing horseshit and should go back to high school like hell the bill of rights didn't even apply to the states until the 14th amendment was passed. states could do whatever the hell they wanted to restrict free speech until 1925
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The shortest explanation is that the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to declare laws "unconstitutional" and thus null and void very early in their existence, and the specific circumstances of the case made it politically inexpedient to push back against them, so the Supreme Court ended up far, *far* more powerful than they were originally created to be. (For the relevant case, look up "Marburry vs. Madison". To look up what powers the constitution has actually delegated to the Supreme Court, just read Article III. It isn't much!) Small point of order: Jackson didn't ignore the Court for the Trail of Tears, the Court basically allowed him to have exclusive right to administer Indian affairs. He just declined to stop Georgia from doing what it wanted (deport all the Native Americans to the 'West'). So not so much the constitutional crisis many make it out to be, but rather a sort of executive neglect that allowed the states to carry out their own plans under the broad umbrella of Federal approval. Otherwise, pretty much right on.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:
I kind of wish we could go back to the time where the worst thing he was known for was putting pubes on a coke can.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
LoudPipesSaveLives posted:Is there a good reason or explanation why the supreme court is the way it is? It just seems absurd that you can have a court ruling on things like it does that you can stack with people who will rule your way. It just doesn't seem possible or reasonable, and the Wikipedia stuff is too long winded to make sense to me. Or is the issue really that the constitution is what they look to an can choose to interpret like the bible, which is to say however they want? Going to take a stab at this, this is a layperson's take on history. The Supreme Court was founded explicitly to solve interstate legal conflicts in a time where almost all governance happened below the federal level. Early on, the SC decided it had the authority to establish federal precedent that could overrule state laws, and most institutions largely went along with this (except when they didn't, see Andrew Jackson). But for the most parts lower federal courts and state courts continued to enforce SC decisions, so the system held together. Until it didn't. Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the Senate, which skews representation by design. Through the mid 1800s the SC's conservative tilt contributed to propping up slavery even as most of the country was turning in the other direction. There were a lot of factors that made slavery such a combative issue as the US was rapidly expanding industrially and into the west, but the SC certainly contributed as it maintained the status quo of wealthy "property" owners (nothing unfamiliar here). Even after the Civil War settled some of those questions with amendments ... the SC didn't really come along. They regularly undermined civil rights gains into the early 20th century and had to be overruled by more constitutional amendments. This finally began to turn around after the 1930s after FDR and subsequent relatively progressive presidents (Eisenhower would probably be labeled a communist today) appointed judges for a couple decades. It didn't hurt that FDR also basically browbeat the SC into compliance with the new deal in the 1930s. All of this led to a brief period in the 1950s-1970s where SC decisions were actually expanding civil rights. This was of course unacceptable to conservatives. One of their common complaints during this era was that judges appointed by presidents for their judicial chops were voting against their party. So they spun up an effort to recruit and purity test judges for conservatism rather than judicial acumen to prevent the same mistakes. This took time to spin up, but eventually this was the definitive source of federal, and especially Supreme Court appointees by Republicans. Over the last 22 years, Republicans have held power for 12 of them despite winning the popular vote once. In the meantime, they have confirmed 5 SC judges to the Dems' 3. So now that the Supreme Court has gotten to the point where there's an overwhelming majority of ideologically aligned judges, they are going to pull down the civil rights framework built up since the 1950s. Over two centuries of judicial norms means that their opinion will be treated as law by most other courts in the US, and (probably for the better most of the time) law enforcement will enforce what the courts declare. The media and Serious People will prop up their authority of this hollowed out shell because of decorum, but it's really more a return to the norm of US history where the SC has blocked progress. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:08 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 05:05
|
|