|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then why loving post about it?? Because it's a way of feeling superior to others, dude. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then why loving post about it?? If you genuinely believe what you're posting then the only thing more useless than trying to stand against the tide is posting about it being useless to try. Why post about anything? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Accubitus posted:Is anyone aware of any charities that I can donate to that *directly* impact women's ability to get an abortion? I'm thinking like organizations that provide transportation, that kind of thing. My recommendation for this kind of thing is to find a local abortion fund. Abortion funds will pay directly for abortions for women who can't afford one, and many also cover travel or child care costs. The website I usually use to find them in specific states is down right now and redirecting to a generic donation site, but it should be easy enough to look up one that's in your area (or in a state where abortion is now pretty much illegal).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Sounds like Hillary should have run a better campaign then so she could have earned their votes. I mean, yeah she had a pretty lovely campaign and I guess the Stein voters thought she would win over captain 'grab em by the pussy' like everyone else did. But I wonder how many Stein voters in swing states are now regretting casting their protest ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
What I can see happening long-term is that more and more social policy is determined at the state level, which will drive left-leaning voters more quickly to the few states whose legislators support progressive policy, further exacerbating the problems of the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I mean, yeah she had a pretty lovely campaign and I guess the Stein voters thought she would win over captain 'grab em by the pussy' like everyone else did. I don’t know, but it’s ultimately irrelevant, considering the titanic missteps of her campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Sounds like Hillary should have run a better campaign then so she could have earned their votes. Sure maybe. Then again, Clinton and the Democratic party warned people. So I am not sure blaming "the Democrats" when they told you exactly what would happen maybe needs to be evaluated here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I hope all the ladies who protest voted for Jill Stein are happy. Why are you singling out women? There were plenty of leftist dudes who didn't think there was a good reason to vote for Hillary, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't need to convince anyone not to try, they already spent decades not trying, and now it is too late. I was just pointing out that the general public would easily swallow the loss of gay marriage and interracial marriage, as easily as they accepted the loss of women's rights. Wiping any of these rights will not cause an ounce of social chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Accubitus posted:Is anyone aware of any charities that I can donate to that *directly* impact women's ability to get an abortion? I'm thinking like organizations that provide transportation, that kind of thing. National Network of Abortion Funds -- nnaf.org Or pick your local fund from their map.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Thomas, for example, would vote against interracial marriage protections? After his concurring opinion today? Yeah I could believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Thomas, for example, would vote against interracial marriage protections? honestly, he might say its up to the states to decide. He knows his relationship isn't in any danger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Clinton and the Democratic party warned people. This line is so stupid and I don't know why people keep repeating it. It's not like Hillary Clinton was Cassandra I'm just some idiot posting and I made all the same "predictions" as did countless others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Thomas, for example, would vote against interracial marriage protections? Given Thomas, it's entirely possible and the logical extension of FYGM: no more interracial marriage going forward depending on state law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Hillary winning in 2016 would have only stalled the inevitable since McConnell would keep on blocking nominations until the next republican president and I wouldn't expect her administration to codify Roe v Wade into federal law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Srice posted:Hillary winning in 2016 would have only stalled the inevitable since McConnell would keep on blocking nominations until the next republican president and I wouldn't expect her administration to codify Roe v Wade into federal law. If McConnell had kept up the blockade for 4 years the court would now be 4-3 conservative (Kennedy would not have retired) and would not have its two most far-right votes. It's impossible to game out what the 2020 election would have looked like but "fix the court" would have an entirely different meaning
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Thomas, for example, would vote against interracial marriage protections? Of course he would. Why wouldn’t he? The principle is more important to him than his own marriage. Do they often rule in ways that serve their personal interests vs their policy goals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the suggestions! Exactly what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
deety posted:My recommendation for this kind of thing is to find a local abortion fund. Abortion funds will pay directly for abortions for women who can't afford one, and many also cover travel or child care costs. The website I usually use to find them in specific states is down right now and redirecting to a generic donation site, but it should be easy enough to look up one that's in your area (or in a state where abortion is now pretty much illegal). Also, as states set up websites to let randos narc on people who assist others in getting abortions, flood those sites with false reports. Random nonsense is fine, but ideally look up low level Republican mooks in those states--the kind of front line staffer types that keep the system running but don't have much if any personal clout--and make reports that are as plausible as possible. The goal is to get the system to waste as much time and effort as possible sifting out bullshit rather than using a script to filter out a million reports of Dickbutt Mcgoon in five seconds. negativeneil posted:What I can see happening long-term is that more and more social policy is determined at the state level, which will drive left-leaning voters more quickly to the few states whose legislators support progressive policy, further exacerbating the problems of the electoral college. Agreed. This has the side effect of leaving the most vulnerable people high and dry, without even the possibility of an in-person support network of non-monsters. It's horrifying. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Thomas, for example, would vote against interracial marriage protections? He explicitly called on the court to overturn every other right-to-privacy ruling based on Roe and Loving. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1540340414447755266
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Keep in mind, that the right has been dogged in pursuing this outcome for decades . The right had a long term plan and worked their rear end off to get it. Without a strong counter from the Pro choice side, it was inevitable that this was going to happen. Even if trump didn't get elected, with that kind of political force going, they would have gotten their eventually. Now it's up to the pro choice side and the democrats(lol) to actually start fighting back as hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Of course he would. Why wouldn’t he? The principle is more important to him than his own marriage. Do they often rule in ways that serve their personal interests vs their policy goals? And he lives where interracial marriage would be legal no matter what so it wouldn't even personally affect him. But he did leave Loving off his list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:This line is so stupid and I don't know why people keep repeating it. It's not like Hillary Clinton was Cassandra I'm just some idiot posting and I made all the same "predictions" as did countless others. Ok great. "leftists" can't come in here and say really its the Democrats fault when they made their choices too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Of course he would. Why wouldn’t he? The principle is more important to him than his own marriage. Do they often rule in ways that serve their personal interests vs their policy goals? I mean, he obviously wouldn't need to lose his marriage. Beyond all other things, he's a wealthy, powerful, well-connected man. The laws literally don't apply to him, and there's nobody in a better position to know that than he is. It was like, what, a week ago that he refused to turn over his/his wife's phone records to a government investigation? And Kavanaugh got a hearing where the FBI literally didn't investigate any of the leads they were given. He can reinstate slavery and not be effected by it. The supreme court doesn't live in the world their opinions bind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Ok great. "leftists" can't come in here and say really its the Democrats fault when they made their choices too. Ginsburg was directly at fault for incredibly predictable reasons but failed to act for very petty ones, and that failure serves as a warning to all future generations that shall be heeded for as long as there is a SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:So is this ruling the same as the draft that leaked? Forgive me if I missed it in a quick moving thread, but was this question answered?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Forgive me if I missed it in a quick moving thread, but was this question answered? It doesn't differ in any legally meaningful way. The only new info is the concurrences and dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Virtually identical. They’ve had this decision essentially finalized since February at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112?s=20&t=rHXOH-T8Qi7t-5rplqvh6Q So aside from the specific cases that Thomas cites and is inviting new challenges to, are there any other notable cases whose decisions rest on substantive due process? Also, is it normal for justices to cite their own concurrences when writing a concurrence? It seems a little masturbatory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Glad we had that whole conversation about how the SC doesn't just sit on decisions and is constantly tweaking them right up to the deadline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:So aside from the specific cases that Thomas cites and is inviting new challenges to, are there any other notable cases whose decisions rest on substantive due process? Thomas specifically writes his concurrences so he can do it in later ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Thomas specifically writes his concurrences so he can do it in later ones. in other words, citing your own work == making up poo poo out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
uPen posted:Glad we had that whole conversation about how the SC doesn't just sit on decisions and is constantly tweaking them right up to the deadline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Calling it now: Loving gets overturned, Thomas's marriage is automatically dissolved, and it'll come out this was all a scheme to leave his wife without having to pay alimony. eviltastic posted:Forgive me if I missed it in a quick moving thread, but was this question answered? I don't think anyone's done a word for word comparison. Obviously the upshot is the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:
I'm curious if the "domestic supply of babies" poo poo is still in there
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
External Organs posted:I'm curious if the "domestic supply of babies" poo poo is still in there Just checked and it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Just checked and it is. Absolutely disgusting. Especially in my area where there are billboards everywhere loudly proclaiming that foster parents are desperately needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
I'm not gonna pretend that Thomas couldn't find some reason to want to overturn Loving, but his listing in that concurrence is about cases decided on substantive due process grounds. Loving was decided on equal protection grounds which is why it's not on his target list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:What I can see happening long-term is that more and more social policy is determined at the state level, which will drive left-leaning voters more quickly to the few states whose legislators support progressive policy, further exacerbating the problems of the electoral college. From someone in a voter suppression state: the progressive policies we enjoyed at the city level were eventually stripped away at the state level. The progressive policies enjoyed at the state level will eventually be stripped away at the federal level. And we know the Right's already preparing to push a federal abortion ban. Guessing we'll see it around January 2025.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Cimber posted:I hope all the ladies who protest voted for Jill Stein are happy. Mooseontheloose posted:Well, I mean they voted for someone who had no shot at winning and Clinton wouldn't of appointed judge beers? So, there is one big difference there. Cimber posted:I mean, yeah she had a pretty lovely campaign and I guess the Stein voters thought she would win over captain 'grab em by the pussy' like everyone else did. I'm going to briefly break my anti-D&D posting policy and say that blaming Jill Stein and Stein-voters is wrong. Stein had no effect on Clinton's electoral votes; any votes that she earned took away a very tiny amount away from Clinton. If there was no Stein in 2016, Clinton still would have lost those red states and still would have had a comfortable margin in blue states. In fact, if you assumed that third party votes were "owed" to the big two, meaning Johnson and McMullin votes go to Trump and Stein votes go to Clinton, then she would have an even worse result. She would have lost Minnsota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Maine. And she would have lose the popular vote too. If anything, Clinton needed third party candidates to split Trump votes. So shut the hell up about third party voters. They did not make Clinton lose nor did they destroy abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 16:55
|
|
