|
Kav is also probably seen as the most malleable. Pretty sure you could lay siege to Alito's house and he'd prefer to starve to death before he caved on finally getting his chance to kill Roe.
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Family Values posted:I apologize for the extremely dumb question, but do we know when we can expect the actual ruling to be released? All we have so far is a leaked draft – not that I have any optimism that the final ruling will be somehow better, but all of these trigger laws in red states don’t come into effect until it’s official.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I apologize for the extremely dumb question, but do we know when we can expect the actual ruling to be released? All we have so far is a leaked draft – not that I have any optimism that the final ruling will be somehow better, but all of these trigger laws in red states don’t come into effect until it’s official. Within a month or two. Most of the court's opinions are released in June.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
They wait until the last possible day in June of their yearly court session and then dump them and run for the real reprehensible poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Don’t worry, the Senate can quickly come together to protect the Americans that actually matter https://mobile.twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1523690465589010432
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Seeing Psaki and others tweeting about how you shouldn't protest their homes when they put up fencing and this poo poo is rage-inducing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Seeing Psaki and others tweeting about how you shouldn't protest their homes when they put up fencing and this poo poo is rage-inducing. I swear none of these people understand the irony of their statements, and I want someone to loving yell at them about the harassment that people go through trying to get healthcare.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Seeing Psaki and others tweeting about how you shouldn't protest their homes when they put up fencing and this poo poo is rage-inducing. Thomas has one successful coup and one unsuccessful coup under his belt and they're still telling us to be polite and not protest too loud.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Seeing Psaki and others tweeting about how you shouldn't protest their homes when they put up fencing and this poo poo is rage-inducing. Which is why I keep telling people that their primary goal should be destroying the Democrats. As long as they’re in place any attempts to fight the right will be channeled into decorum poisoned bullshit that accomplishes nothing. They are like a giant heat sink sucking up any and all productive energy and channeling it into electing conservative former CIA spooks.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:57
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about it was "widely accepted interpretation" of the law? The purely partisan reading is still accepted as "the law" by said partisans, who won multiple democratic elections to ensure that their reading of the constitution would be the prevailing one. Their reading might be poo poo, but it's not strongman rule. It's how the democratic process works.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
With the correct number of quotation marks around “the” and “democratic”
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The purely partisan reading is still accepted as "the law" by said partisans, who won multiple democratic elections to ensure that their reading of the constitution would be the prevailing one. Ah well if you're shifting to a power-based argument that it's not strongman rule because one side won and has the power to ignore the law and the constitution as long as their fellow partisans agree with their interpretation, and not that their interpretation was legally sound according to broadly accepted principles of constitutional law as you were implying before, then that could just as easily apply to the side that won the 2020 elections and could likewise say what "the law" is on a partisan basis and ignore supreme court pronouncements that are lawless from their perspective. So all the pearl-clutching about how one of these things would be strongman rule is p inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
It's neither strongman nor " democratic" at this point. Technically oligarchy is probably the best term.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Going to guess having a highly publicized confirmation hearing focusing on him being a rapist probably has some effect on people choosing to protest outside of his house. My understanding was they're all being protested, Brett's is just the rowdiest.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:24
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah well if you're shifting to a power-based argument that it's not strongman rule because one side won and has the power to ignore the law and the constitution as long as their fellow partisans agree with their interpretation, and not that their interpretation was legally sound according to broadly accepted principles of constitutional law as you were implying before, then that could just as easily apply to the side that won the 2020 elections and could likewise say what "the law" is on a partisan basis and ignore supreme court pronouncements that are lawless from their perspective. So all the pearl-clutching about how one of these things would be strongman rule is p inconsistent. In what way is originalism not legally sound and how would we judge it other than by the fact that the highest authority on US legal soundness, the SCOTUS. I would also point out that all SCOTUS judges recieved the highest recommendation by the American Bar Association, pointing to the fact that their opinions are well founded.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Well if the system says the system is right then the system must be right
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:In what way is originalism not legally sound and how would we judge it other than by the fact that the highest authority on US legal soundness, the SCOTUS. I would also point out that all SCOTUS judges recieved the highest recommendation by the American Bar Association, pointing to the fact that their opinions are well founded. Originalism was entirely made up in the 70s and 80s in reaction to and opposition of civil rights legislation
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
I think what GaussianCopula is getting at is the law is made-up.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That would create an incredible instability as the way the constitution is interpreted changes by the luck of the draw. Looks like a true believer to me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I think what GaussianCopula is getting at is the law is made-up. Yes, but the regular law is only partly made up to oppose civil rights as opposed to entirely Piell fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:In what way is originalism not legally sound How do you base constitutional interpretation on 200-year-old founders' intent when the founders had varied intentions and some of them thought the constitution should be updated regularly if not outright replaced generationally? Basing your judicial philosophy on originalism is about as realistic as basing your military strategy on Captain America.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:38
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:How do you base constitutional interpretation on 200-year-old founders' intent when the founders had varied intentions and some of them thought the constitution should be updated regularly if not outright replaced generationally? Basing your judicial philosophy on originalism is about as realistic as basing your military strategy on Captain America. I would agree with them that the constitution should be refreshed by the legislative, whose job it is. It's not the job of the judicative to update the constitution. So if you want a constitutional right to abortion, propose and enact an amendment enshrining this right. That is by the way how Ireland solved their abortion issue - they amended their constitution GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 9, 2022 |
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:How do you base constitutional interpretation on 200-year-old founders' intent when the founders had varied intentions and some of them thought the constitution should be updated regularly if not outright replaced generationally? Basing your judicial philosophy on originalism is about as realistic as basing your military strategy on Captain America. I can't judge Gaussian based on previous posting so I can't tell if they're being sincere or it's a bit whose point is that the problem is with the legal establishment as a whole. Originalism is obviously a farce but the legal establishment (courts, lawyers, academia) has treated as a real thing so it's "legally sound". If law schools had treated the conservative legal movement as what it is instead of giving it an unearned stamp of approval we wouldn't be in this mess. edit: huh guess I was making them smarter than they are
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That is by the way how Ireland solved their abortion issue - they amended their constitution Ireland solved their abortion issue by letting a woman die horribly while medical staff dithered over whether bad laws allowed them to give her an abortion. It would be best if we could skip this part in the US
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Ireland also let a woman die horribly while medical staff dithered over whether to give her an abortion. It would be best if we could skip this part in the US Also their constitution is amended by referendum.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Ireland solved their abortion issue by letting a woman die horribly while medical staff dithered over whether bad laws allowed them to give her an abortion. It would be best if we could skip this part in the US If we can handle Sandy Hook without doing anything we can easily let hundreds of women die without lifting a finger. Conservatives don't even pretend to care about women, it won't slow them down at all.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I can't judge Gaussian based on previous posting so I can't tell if they're being sincere or it's a bit whose point is that the problem is with the legal establishment as a whole. Originalism is obviously a farce but the legal establishment (courts, lawyers, academia) has treated as a real thing so it's "legally sound". If law schools had treated the conservative legal movement as what it is instead of giving it an unearned stamp of approval we wouldn't be in this mess. I am just judging their post as written without interpreting, as God intended.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I am just judging their post as written without interpreting, as God intended. Textualism triumphant.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Fantasizing about constitutional amendments is pointless because the left has no power to actually push one through or enforce it once in place. We need to be focusing on organization and building enough power to get things done by any means necessary. Again, politics is a negotiation. You won’t get anything without some ability to strongarm the other side into making concessions. More/stronger unions would be where I’d start but spooking judges with angry mobs protesting at their front door every day is also a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:In what way is originalism not legally sound and how would we judge it other than by the fact that the highest authority on US legal soundness, the SCOTUS. I would also point out that all SCOTUS judges recieved the highest recommendation by the American Bar Association, pointing to the fact that their opinions are well founded. I didn't say that "originalism" wasn't legally sound, you're shifting the goalposts from "how was Shelby County lawless" to originalism Shelby County makes no sense from an Originalist perspective because it ignores the intent of the framers of the 15th Amendment which was to take voting rights out of the hands of the pro-slavery court, and it invents from whole cloth a vague right of equal protection of states and a presumption of innocence of former slave state intent which the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments absolutely provably did not share and did not put in the constitution anywhere. It's a mockery of the supposedly respectable concept of originalism, but quite accurate as an example that in practice justices claiming to be "originalist" are just making up their own laws and substituting their own opinions for those of the original authors of the constitution and its amendments. As an aside it's rather funny that laws suppressing the vote and sabotaging democracy are being defended as "democratic" because the people being suppressed haven't managed to overturn them at the ballot box. Perfect example of liberals confusing democratic government and consent of the governed with officials filling out forms the right way according to the rules. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I would agree with them that the constitution should be refreshed by the legislative, whose job it is. Most countries do not have as difficult a process to amend the Constitution. The US requires - 2/3rds vote in both chambers of Congress AND ratification by 3/4ths of the States. Both individual steps are impossible currently and have been impossible for many decades, making both steps combined impossible. This means the Consitution will never be amended. How would rights such as privacy, abortion, same sex or interracial marriage, etc, be made law in this situation? Why doesn't the implied rights clause of the Ninth Amendment cover these? Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:So do you agree with Alito, that the Constitution covers no implicit rights despite the Ninth Amendment stating exactly that? The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Because Alito said it doesn't, and quoted all sorts of 13th century anglo-saxon law that said so. Ignoring all the other stuff of course that supports it. Plus ignoring all the precedent that deals with body autonomy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Most countries do not have as difficult a process to amend the Constitution. This really isn't true, as anyone who goes on about wanting Canada to abolish the monarchy when the queen dies finds out after a minute or two of research. Australia requires a referendum that has to achieve both a majority of all Australians and of a majority of voters in a majority of states. Nearly every country requires a supermajority of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This really isn't true, as anyone who goes on about wanting Canada to abolish the monarchy when the queen dies finds out after a minute or two of research. Australia requires a referendum that has to achieve both a majority of all Australians and of a majority of voters in a majority of states. Nearly every country requires a supermajority of some sort. That's way easier than how we amend ours. We'd certainly have way more amendments if ours worked the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:09
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:So do you agree with Alito, that the Constitution covers no implicit rights despite the Ninth Amendment stating exactly that? The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. Crows Turn Off posted:Most countries do not have as difficult a process to amend the Constitution. The US requires - 2/3rds vote in both chambers of Congress AND ratification by 3/4ths of the States. Both individual steps are impossible currently and have been impossible for many decades, making both steps combined impossible. This means the Consitution will never be amended. The fact that a constitution is difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. That's why constitutional rights are better protect than regular law, because it takes more than a majority to create/remove them. Using the SCOTUS as this one weird trick to get around that cuts both ways.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. Then explain Thomas.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Love posters thinking protesting is a bridge too far. If they pass this the justices should be afraid. So should everyone in the media demanding decorum. But the reality is, violence on a scale most people aren’t ready for is coming, one way or another. Historically it has to. I’m not advocating for it, but being aware we haven’t even started having things be bad is good for you’re mental mindset. Enjoy it while things are still easy and stable as they are,
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. His legal theory is in itself sound, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. Trapped in an endless ideology of pretending the US is a legitimate democracy. Smdh.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:18
|
|
Cimber posted:Then explain Thomas. Nominated by Bush and approved by a majority of Senators that consisted of Republicans and Democrats.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:This really isn't true, as anyone who goes on about wanting Canada to abolish the monarchy when the queen dies finds out after a minute or two of research. Australia requires a referendum that has to achieve both a majority of all Australians and of a majority of voters in a majority of states. Nearly every country requires a supermajority of some sort. Eh, it is easier in Canada. Canada requires 7 out of 13 provinces to agree to the amendment along with both houses of parliament. It only has to be by simple majority. states requires 2/3rds of state legislatures and both the senate and congress. Section 41 of the Charter of rights and freedoms requires unanimous consent from the provinces for things like abolishing the monarchy or changing the official languages from english and french. There's like 5 specific things there. The states are uniquely bad in stopping popular sovereignty Quick list that's pretty unique to the states: a) The completely undemocratic Senate b) lifetime appointments in the supreme court. c) Money in politics- in essence the politicians are wrapped up fundraising most of time d) Individual states have an enormous amount of authority and districts can be easily gerrymandered.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:21
|
|
