May 2022 Current Events Thread: Statistically, Rhode Island doesn't exist

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > May 2022 Current Events Thread: Statistically, Rhode Island doesn't exist

«‹›52 »

Hyrax Attack!: Jan 13, 2009; We demand to be taken seriously

BIG HEADLINE posted:

"Save us, Aaron Sorkin!"

(he nods smugly, grabs a kilo of pure Bolivian flake, ODs, and dies)

"Ah, well then."

quote:

Before Sorkin adapted To Kill a Mockingbird for the theatre, a different adaptation of the novel by playwright Christopher Sergel had been available for license for over 50 years. Claiming worldwide exclusivity for the professional stage rights to any adaptation of Lee's novel, lawyers acting for the company Scott Rudin formed to produce Sorkin's adaptation, Atticus LLC (ALLC), moved to shut down productions of the Sergel adaption staged within 25 miles of any city that ALLC determined to be a major metropolitan center that might eventually host a production of Sorkin's adaptation, even if that company had already paid the rights holders. Dozens of community and non-profit theaters across the US cancelled productions of Sergel's adaptation, as well as a professional tour planned in the UK. After a public outcry, Scott Rudin offered to "ameliorate the hurt caused" by making Sorkin's adaptation available to regional producers.

Threatening to sue high school drama depts with a company named after Atticus Finch, let Sorkin be Sorkin.

# ? May 7, 2022 05:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 00:50

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Clarence Thomas is in the top five people most responsible for the erosion of American institutions.

It�s him, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi.

# ? May 7, 2022 05:33

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

Platystemon posted:

Clarence Thomas is in the top five people most responsible for the erosion of American institutions.

It�s him, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi.

Goldwater and then Newt Gingrich laid out and refined the GOP strategy to what it is now. Also the vast support mostly from oil and defense tycoons who are smart and not egotistical enough fly under the radar unlike Thiel or the Kochs

# ? May 7, 2022 06:31

PookBear: Nov 1, 2008

Hyrax Attack! posted:

Threatening to sue high school drama depts with a company named after Atticus Finch, let Sorkin be Sorkin.

https://twitter.com/meganamram/status/1087143660389466112?lang=en

# ? May 7, 2022 07:45

Project M.A.M.I.L.: Apr 30, 2007; Older, balder, fatter...

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

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.

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!)

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

Thanks for both of these answers, they're exactly what I was looking for and also the suggested stuff I look at is very helpful thanks. Reading about Marbury v. Madison is pretty interesting.

# ? May 7, 2022 09:04

Terrifying Effigies: Oct 22, 2008; Problems look mighty small from 150 miles up.

For most of the Supreme Court's history it has been by design a lower case c conservative institution, although as previously mentioned the two periods in which it actively worked to impose a capital C Conservative status quo on a changing country ended up with civil war (Taney Court, slavery, and the US Civil War) and major social unrest (Lochner, economic reform, and the Gilded Era/Great Depression).

# ? May 7, 2022 13:39

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

Oh wow, so there's precedent

# ? May 7, 2022 14:48

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

LoudPipesSaveLives posted:

So none of those will happen and USA will continue to get worse, got it.

It's not *quite* that dire, but all of this should essentially lead to a massive liberal/progressive focus at the local level, versus the current federal-only focus of most liberal-minded people. And a huge strategic shift in thinking/opinion once the current leaders die off and younger leaders come in with better knowledge that the law is fake and can act accordingly.

# ? May 7, 2022 14:58

SquirrelyPSU: May 27, 2003

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!)

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

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

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.

Great posts. 10/10, chef's kiss, no notes.

# ? May 7, 2022 15:09

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Pretty sure Amy has a 14 word summary for this

https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715?s=20&t=IZ38owcd86ZmQHGZ-51ljA

# ? May 7, 2022 17:02

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Domestic macro-brood fan

# ? May 7, 2022 17:37

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

That Works posted:

Pretty sure Amy has a 14 word summary for this

https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715?s=20&t=IZ38owcd86ZmQHGZ-51ljA

Can't let the Russians get a tragedy gap on us

# ? May 7, 2022 17:47

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

Uteruses are State property.

This is a sarcastic comment and does not represent a personally held opinion.

# ? May 7, 2022 17:47

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

Lmao

We had an all hands email at work yesterday where one of the seniors was talking about China's lack of regard for human dignity and how we had to oppose that and I'm thinking yes please senior federal employee, tell me all about respecting human dignity in the United States.

# ? May 7, 2022 17:48

Soul Dentist: Mar 17, 2009

A.o.D. posted:

This is a sarcastic comment and does not represent a personally held opinion.

I got sigs off but this should really be appended to every single one of my posts

# ? May 7, 2022 17:53

El Mero Mero: Oct 13, 2001

That Works posted:

Pretty sure Amy has a 14 word summary for this

https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715?s=20&t=IZ38owcd86ZmQHGZ-51ljA

As someone who was seriously looking at adoption with my partner, and sat in on hours and hours of intro sessions at different agencies, it made me realize the "just put them up for adoption!" argument of pro-lifers was something that was part of an actual industry.

It wasn't until I attended adoption agency sessions that I realized that adoption agencies often charge 15-20,000 per adoption (regardless of success) and that there's something like a 100/1 ratio between clients at those agencies to actual infants available to be adopted and that those agencies are aggressive special interests in their own right.

They have like "baby recruiters" that hang outside of delivery wards and intake from the pro-life counselling centers and there's a shitload of cases where people are pushed to give away their kids, have their kids stolen, or are coerced into secret surrogacy arrangements by adoption agencies.

They're also insanely racist and it's almost 100% white families adopting people of color and trying to get people to sign away parental rights within seconds of birth.

The whole thing was extremely hosed and I think I found maybe 1-2 agencies in the in the western us that weren't totally hosed before we abandoned the project entirely for IVF.

# ? May 7, 2022 18:30

Arven: Sep 23, 2007

My wife also looked into it and it would be 20x cheaper to just have a kid ourselves if we wanted another.

You can take the foster care to adoption route, but the parents almost always get to take the kids back at some point, which (as selfish as this is, I'll admit) from all accounts is devastating for the foster parent. This bounceback creates behavioral issues a lot of the time, which lands them back in foster care when they're older.

You can then get those older kids, but as we already have a young son they basically won't let us for his safety. We've decided we're going to do it anyways when he's older, but it kinda sucks he won't have a sibling until then.

The whole system in the US is hosed and seems like it's designed for lawyers to make money.

# ? May 7, 2022 18:43

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Arven posted:

the US is hosed and seems like it's designed for lawyers to make money.

# ? May 7, 2022 18:56

Terrifying Effigies: Oct 22, 2008; Problems look mighty small from 150 miles up.

That Works posted:

Pretty sure Amy has a 14 word summary for this

https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1522737305710067715?s=20&t=IZ38owcd86ZmQHGZ-51ljA

The 5-4 podcast pointed out there's about ~120,000 child adoptions in the US per year, with international adoptions having fallen off a cliff in the mid-2000s to only a few thousand a year pre-pandemic.

By comparison, there were 629,898 total abortions in the US reported to the CDC in 2019. Even if only a fraction of those were forced to come to term it would collapse the current child welfare system (which we all know is running wonderfully).

# ? May 7, 2022 19:01

maffew buildings: Apr 29, 2009; too dumb to be probated; not too dumb to be autobanned

Is there even one pro-life argument that doesn't come back to, at it's root, some Evangelical doctrine? Not talking about the SC decision because we all know the SC is bullshit but actual arguments people make against it. Serious question because I can't recall ever hearing one

# ? May 7, 2022 19:05

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

maffew buildings posted:

Is there even one pro-life argument that doesn't come back to, at it's root, some Evangelical doctrine? Not talking about the SC decision because we all know the SC is bullshit but actual arguments people make against it. Serious question because I can't recall ever hearing one

Well, there is the "Babies are humans and human life should always be preserved" argument. Is that evangelical? I dunno. Is it, on its face, morally defensible? I think so.

Before you get any ideas, I have my entire life supported everyone's right to get an abortion for any reason, up to and including convenience.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:08

bulletsponge13: Apr 28, 2010

Elements of my childhood are classified by Amnesty International as Human Rights Abuses.

I had a relatively unterrible childhood compared to people I know; but it still hosed me up for life. My Egg Donor was mentally ill, immature, financially and morally unable to raise children.

Whenever someone brings up some 'moral' reasoning, I ask them what is more moral- to torture a kid, or never have that kid exist? No one has an answer when confronted by victims.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:35

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

A.o.D. posted:

Well, there is the "Babies are humans and human life should always be preserved" argument. Is that evangelical? I dunno. Is it, on its face, morally defensible? I think so.

Before you get any ideas, I have my entire life supported everyone's right to get an abortion for any reason, up to and including convenience.

Ask anyone spouting off the "a blastocyst is a human and human life needs to be protected at all costs!" if they support the death penalty.

99 out of 100 they're full of poo poo.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:37

Discussion Quorum: Dec 5, 2002; Armchair Philistine

El Mero Mero posted:

The whole thing was extremely hosed and I think I found maybe 1-2 agencies in the in the western us that weren't totally hosed before we abandoned the project entirely for IVF.

It's bad. The underpinnings of the international adoption schemes are also horrifyingly gross in a myriad of different ways.

Whenever someone says something judgemental like "IVF is selfish, you should adopt instead" I have to do some eyes-closed deep breathing for a moment.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:42

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

bird food bathtub posted:

Ask anyone spouting off the "a blastocyst is a human and human life needs to be protected at all costs!" if they support the death penalty.

99 out of 100 they're full of poo poo.

You are correct. I've never known someone that wrung their hands over the poor blastocyst that also lamented the State's use of lethal violence against its own citizens or was an absolute pacifist. As near as I can tell, the scenario I outlined is purely theoretical.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:46

Nystral: Feb 6, 2002; Every man likes a pretty girl with him at a skeleton dance.

facialimpediment posted:

It's not *quite* that dire, but all of this should essentially lead to a massive liberal/progressive focus at the local level, versus the current federal-only focus of most liberal-minded people. And a huge strategic shift in thinking/opinion once the current leaders die off and younger leaders come in with better knowledge that the law is fake and can act accordingly.

But this shift in focus to local races was one of the key lessons learned from 2016 and Trump�s win after the Dema lost over 1000 seats during the Obama years. The lesson that supposedly pushed the VA races over the line and caused the state houses to flip in 2017? 2018? I forget. But it didn�t last because the GOP took back both chambers by 2021.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:51

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

It really comes into focus when they are all "abortion is murder, but I agree with exemptions for rape and incest".

Like uh... be morally consistent if that's what you really believe jfc.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:52

lightpole: Jun 4, 2004; I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".

If you are just trying to construct a technical moral argument, push an extreme such as a baby 1 day before birth and 1 day after, thats probably the best place to find it. Does the baby have the same rights in both situations and break it down into a number of ways the baby/mother could die. At some point, I would think there's a moral argument there but you have to walk pretty far out on a limb to find it and there's no chance the situation would ever present itself in reality. I'm not putting in the effort to actually create this since there's probably a conflict with life of the mother circumstances as well and Ive never heard anyone try to make this argument.

I thought Christianity was the only religion that really cared and most of that is just centered on dogma. Theres too much hypocrisy to take it seriously.

# ? May 7, 2022 19:59

Blind Rasputin: Nov 25, 2002; Farewell, good Hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world.

maffew buildings posted:

Is there even one pro-life argument that doesn't come back to, at it's root, some Evangelical doctrine? Not talking about the SC decision because we all know the SC is bullshit but actual arguments people make against it. Serious question because I can't recall ever hearing one

Listen to today�s episode of The Daily podcast to hear how we got here. In the mid 1970s southern conservative Christians were running segregationist schools, where basically they could send their kids to them and be guaranteed they were �white only� schools. It was extremely racist as gently caress. The IRS decided to take them to task and passed a law that revoked all public/federal funding for any school doing this poo poo. In response, a few Christian leaders looked at what they had to work with and realized there was a giant untapped population of evangelicals who a) were fairly silent and hardly ever voted and b) were just as racist as they were. They started pushing huge efforts to motivate this evangelical body to vote. The primary talking point they used to motivate them? Abortion. It was barely a hot topic until they made it so. Jerry Falwell became the figurehead of this movement, and Reagan ran his ticket on this movement and won. Bring us all the way to today, where nearly every pro-abortion anti-choice talking point hasn�t changed a letter from the original jerry Falwell talking points and the evangelical voting block is still doing everything in its power to preserve racist acts throughout the country.

All because they wanted to keep black kids out of their schools..

# ? May 7, 2022 20:48

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Blind Rasputin posted:

All because they wanted to keep black kids out of their schools..

I question the use of tense in this, but nothing else.

# ? May 7, 2022 21:42

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

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.

There is a lot of good ones but this in particular is an interesting take/effort post.

Pretty bad implications though if the historical precedent to solving it is either the civil war or the Dems packing the court which leaders explicitly refuse to consider

# ? May 7, 2022 21:49

Arcella: Dec 16, 2013; Shiny and Chrome

That Works posted:

It really comes into focus when they are all "abortion is murder, but I agree with exemptions for rape and incest".

Like uh... be morally consistent if that's what you really believe jfc.

If they really believed abortion is murder, then they'd fully support free and readily available birth control for everyone so that not one single person has an unwanted pregnancy.

But, as we see with Barret's comment, they're birthers or just assholes who think women (just women, really) need to be punished for having sex.

# ? May 7, 2022 22:32

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Arcella posted:

If they really believed abortion is murder, then they'd fully support free and readily available birth control for everyone so that not one single person has an unwanted pregnancy.

They also believe contraception is murder because life begins at conception and stopping conception is murder too somehow.

It's not at all a logical belief, but it's a strongly-held belief.

# ? May 7, 2022 22:38

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

It�s all garbage if you parse it out because it�s just ways to justify an either unconscious or deliberately hidden belief that women shouldn�t have autonomy and should be subject to either fathers or husbands, and must be punished if they step outside that framework.

# ? May 7, 2022 22:47

A.o.D.: Jan 15, 2006

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

They also believe contraception is murder because life begins at conception and stopping conception is murder too somehow.

It's not at all a logical belief, but it's a strongly-held belief.

There is one worldview that is perfectly logically consistent, and that is that uteruses are state property. If you believe that, then everything else they do is :hmmyes:

# ? May 7, 2022 22:49

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

SMEGMA_MAIL posted:

It�s all garbage if you parse it out because it�s just ways to justify an either unconscious or deliberately hidden belief that women shouldn�t have autonomy and should be subject to either fathers or husbands, and must be punished if they step outside that framework.

Women being subservient to their husbands was just an openly stated and embraced thing of every church I was in growing up.

# ? May 7, 2022 23:31

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

All sex that isn't directly leading to pregnancy gives women some semblance of control of their lives / independence, therefore it corrupts all of society and so it is Bad and against God:

https://twitter.com/CAKitchener/status/1522909109292523522?t=TC69l33ig9U_rfJ7ubDgAg&s=19

Another instance of GOVERNMENT GET OUT REEEEE types just wanting government to ban what *they* want instead.

# ? May 7, 2022 23:36

stealie72: Jan 10, 2007

Blind Rasputin posted:

All because they wanted to keep black kids out of their schools..

If you ever can't figure out why something is the way it is in America, it saves a lot of time to start with racism first, then work outwards.

# ? May 7, 2022 23:57

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

maffew buildings posted:

Is there even one pro-life argument that doesn't come back to, at it's root, some Evangelical doctrine? Not talking about the SC decision because we all know the SC is bullshit but actual arguments people make against it. Serious question because I can't recall ever hearing one

Yes of course.

There are the arguments that come back to catholic doctrine.

# ? May 8, 2022 01:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 00:50

LtCol J. Krusinski: May 7, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

El Mero Mero posted:

As someone who was seriously looking at adoption with my partner, and sat in on hours and hours of intro sessions at different agencies, it made me realize the "just put them up for adoption!" argument of pro-lifers was something that was part of an actual industry.

It wasn't until I attended adoption agency sessions that I realized that adoption agencies often charge 15-20,000 per adoption (regardless of success) and that there's something like a 100/1 ratio between clients at those agencies to actual infants available to be adopted and that those agencies are aggressive special interests in their own right.

They have like "baby recruiters" that hang outside of delivery wards and intake from the pro-life counselling centers and there's a shitload of cases where people are pushed to give away their kids, have their kids stolen, or are coerced into secret surrogacy arrangements by adoption agencies.

They're also insanely racist and it's almost 100% white families adopting people of color and trying to get people to sign away parental rights within seconds of birth.

The whole thing was extremely hosed and I think I found maybe 1-2 agencies in the in the western us that weren't totally hosed before we abandoned the project entirely for IVF.

Check your PM�s

# ? May 8, 2022 03:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > May 2022 Current Events Thread: Statistically, Rhode Island doesn't exist

«‹›52 »