|
Stickman posted:I refuse to believe you actually live in the US There's uncontroversial to the majority of Americans, and there's uncontroversial to the Senate/Electoral College minoritarian power structure's base.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
XboxPants posted:This sounds to me like a threat. Thomas / Alito / Barrett? Are all on board with stripping any civil rights anyone might have. Kagan / Sotomayor / Breyer/Jackson are not. That leaves Gorsuch / Kavanaugh / Roberts as flex. Gorsuch doesn’t like the state having unlimited power and the other two wrote separately to say “cmon guys this is all a bit much”, so it’s unclear until that next case. Not saying no threat, just saying fair amount of signals all the dominoes might not fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Abortion, gay rights, universal healthcare, and a bunch of other progressive policies have wide support in the US but sure go ahead with these lead-brained takes. Two party and team politics is a hell of a drug for low information voters. This doesn't really matter because half of the voting population, regardless of their feelings on the above policies, prioritize being racist self-absorbed monsters lusting for tax cuts over all other political stances. So even if they are popular it doesn't matter because conservatives who care aren't going to give up the racism for anything and the people you need to make up the difference either don't vote out of apathy or can't vote through disenfranchisement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The main problem is that our legislature does not function well at all. If we had an effective legislative branch that could respond to the need to create and revise laws then the court would not have been able to fill the void as thoroughly as they have. Almost everything the supreme court does could be easily undone by congress if it (specifically the Senate) wasn't so thoroughly broken. Structurally also, our "checks and balances" mean it's extremely easy for factions in legislature and executive to block any changes --- all it takes is a majority in one chamber or president's veto (even ignoring the filibuster insanity) --- but there is no direct check on the SCOTUS changing stuff (everyone else has to agree, not just one of them!).... and it's the branch with lifetime appointments, so the voters don't get to react, either. Now traditionally the courts have somewhat self-limited with precedent and procedural stuff like standing, issuing the most narrow ruling possible, etc, but that seems to have been falling by the side lately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Loving v. Virginia could also be targeted with similar rationale, but it was left out of Thomas’ dissent because it was decided on equal protection grounds instead of via substantive due process. If they are making the argument that "there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to _______.” you can apply that to anything, really... but in all honesty, the Thomas is in an interracial marriage, so of course he didn't mention Loving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
No, Thomas was doing what he always does - attacking substantive due process. This is something he has done consistently since the early 90s. Loving predates SDP. That’s why he didn’t mention it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
I would bet a small amount of money that Oberflugell & friends won't get overturned anytime soon. Losing Roe will kill a lot of women, sure, but its not particularly disruptive to capital at large. Allowing gay marriage to be re-banned and/or bringing back DOMA would just cause such an administrative clusterfuck and so many problems that I think Roberts and Gorsuch would flip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I would bet a small amount of money that Oberflugell & friends won't get overturned anytime soon. Losing Roe will kill a lot of women, sure, but its not particularly disruptive to capital at large. Allowing gay marriage to be re-banned and/or bringing back DOMA would just cause such an administrative clusterfuck and so many problems that I think Roberts and Gorsuch would flip. I don’t know that it’s necessarily all about that any more. Capital capitulated to the fascists in order to survive in the Weimar period. Power for its own sake becomes its own goal after a certain point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I would bet a small amount of money that Oberflugell & friends won't get overturned anytime soon. Losing Roe will kill a lot of women, sure, but its not particularly disruptive to capital at large. Allowing gay marriage to be re-banned and/or bringing back DOMA would just cause such an administrative clusterfuck and so many problems that I think Roberts and Gorsuch would flip. What about this court makes you think they care at all about anything other than enforcing capitalist American evangelical Christianity as the law of the land? They're winding up to dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus on Monday, I don't think they give a single gently caress about administrative clusterfucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
I think it’s important to remember that the political faction that worked for decades to kill Roe also wants to eliminate contraception and gay sex/marriage, so even if this court doesn’t give that to them, they’re going to keep at it until they get a court that does. I don’t know if they’ll eventually succeed, but the people who brought us here do not want to stop here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I think it’s important to remember that the political faction that worked for decades to kill Roe also wants to eliminate contraception and gay sex/marriage, so even if this court doesn’t give that to them, they’re going to keep at it until they get a court that does. I don’t know if they’ll eventually succeed, but the people who brought us here do not want to stop here. They are the kind of people who would gladly declare these judges RINOs and impeach them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:02
|
|
OddObserver posted:Structurally also, our "checks and balances" mean it's extremely easy for factions in legislature and executive to block any changes --- all it takes is a majority in one chamber or president's veto (even ignoring the filibuster insanity) --- but there is no direct check on the SCOTUS changing stuff (everyone else has to agree, not just one of them!).... and it's the branch with lifetime appointments, so the voters don't get to react, either. Now traditionally the courts have somewhat self-limited with precedent and procedural stuff like standing, issuing the most narrow ruling possible, etc, but that seems to have been falling by the side lately. But this argument cuts both ways. If we assume that the SCOTUS has some creative freedom as to how it interprets the law to advance policy (abortion, marriage equality etc.) then a change in the makeup of the court can lead to a change in those policies. It's reasonable to assume that the same will happen with gun rights if/when the makeup of the court substantially changes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:But this argument cuts both ways. If we assume that the SCOTUS has some creative freedom as to how it interprets the law to advance policy (abortion, marriage equality etc.) then a change in the makeup of the court can lead to a change in those policies. It's reasonable to assume that the same will happen with gun rights if/when the makeup of the court substantially changes. Deeply unlikely. The liberal Justices actually tend to have legal experience, and believe in things like due process and precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Sure it’s a great exercise in masturbatory cogitation. But we’re allowed, and have many times, amended the constitution for more rights after our country developed over time. I hate everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:29
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Deeply unlikely. I would argue that the Warren court was the liberal equivalent to what the Roberts court is doing. Both courts and their supporters would argue that they are just interpreting the law the way it should be interpreted, but I see clear parallels between the two when it comes to their treatment of precedent.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:This doesn't really matter because half of the voting population, regardless of their feelings on the above policies, prioritize being racist self-absorbed monsters lusting for tax cuts over all other political stances. So even if they are popular it doesn't matter because conservatives who care aren't going to give up the racism for anything and the people you need to make up the difference either don't vote out of apathy or can't vote through disenfranchisement. The other half have also not prioritized reproductive healthcare, otherwise we wouldn't have Henry Cuellar (and others like him). The majority's opinion about this or that issue doesn't matter unless those opinions influence their vote, and the Democratic base has been ignoring or taking abortion access for granted for years. But if by some miracle Democrats don't lose the House and/or the Senate in November, and by another miracle grew a spine stiff enough that they actually passed legislation guaranteeing abortion federally, what's stopping this SCOTUS from simply striking it down? Even an amendment can be 'interpreted' away. The only thing that's going to fix this is to unpack the court and get a new ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Deeply unlikely. They have the luxury of saying that they believe in those things because they are in the minority. If they had gained the majority in 2016 I have no doubt that Heller, Citizen’s United, and Shelby County, would have been in just as much danger as Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I would argue that the Warren court was the liberal equivalent to what the Roberts court is doing. The Court has gone back and forth between "what horrible old rich people want" and "Wait, maybe we shouldn't be high priests of the horrible" since the Lochner era and arguably since Dred Scott. What sets this court apart isn't their willingness to be horrible in service of their political goals; what sets this Court apart from earlier courts is how deeply deeply out of step they are with majority opinion in the country, and how little they appear to care about that. The Court has *generally* over history been willing to listen to trends in popular opinion, and even when they issued horrible opinions, they were doing so in reference to widely held political beliefs and thought they were helping the nation resolve problems (e.g., the Taney Court in Dred Scott thought they were resolving the slavery debate by taking the question off the political table; the Lochner court thought they were protecting the economy). The current court is a mix of ideologue catholics and ideologue libertarians and ideologue movement conservatives and they don't actually appear to care about the practical effects of their decisions; they're just making GBS threads out fringe extremist movement conservative preferences even though movement conservatives are an extreme political minority (who just happen to have seized political power due to a number of different anti-democratic trends in our government converging in bad ways).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Something I wrote to a political blog I read. Thoughts? Hello. A few weeks ago I wrote and asked if you thought that Ginny Thomas was likely to be the leaker. Your response was fairly tepid, but I now feel the need to write again and say that I stand by that guess. I have a few reasons why. 1) She’s a political hack, and is part of the far right wing of the GOP. We’ve seen her actions in connection with January 6th, and she does not seem to be in any way measured, reserved or have any respect for the institutions of the United States. She believes only in power. 2) While she might be a fanatic, she’s no dummy. I suspect that she, like a lot of the other far right GOPers might be feeling a bit queasy about this victory, as it's a case of ‘dog catches car’. Now that they got what they wanted, did they really want this? Roe was great for the GOP to fundraise and campaign for, identify ideologically pure candidates and to rally the religious base, but now that they have it are they going to be able to keep the political momentum? 3) Furthermore, the religious right portion of the GOP will not feel the need to work together with other sections of the GOP big tent. Senator Josh Hawley stated openly that "For years on the conservative side of the ledger, social conservatives have been told that they had to form an alliance with the corporatists, the neoliberals, in order to get elected," he said. "I think that alliance is over today. There's no reason for social conservatives to go along with a corporatist agenda that frankly never had much support in the country.” https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-overturning-roe-v-wade-help-republicans-electoral-college-2022-6 This is a problem for the current GOP, and if they have to rely only on the religious voters they are going to very quickly find themselves in the minority. 4) The shock and outrage engulfing the country right now would be a hundred times worse had the leak not hit in May. Imagine would the country would be like if yesterday was the first time we heard the decision? So I think that Ginny Thomas, political operator that she is, deduced the above and decided that leaking the decision was probably the best thing that could happen for the GOP. After her husband got Alito’s initial draft of the document, she and he worked together on writing his concurrence opinion. She then leaked out the Alito decision to some of her fellow political operators as a way to forewarn them that this was coming down, and that they needed to get their talking points and press strategies in line and in order. I don’t think she expected the leak to continue to spread and is indeed panicking a bit that this might get traced back to her. Roberts, I believe, knows all this but is loath of reveal it because he still in his heart believes that the Court should be respected. Revealing that the wife of a justice was the leaker would be the final straw for the destruction of the moral authority of the court. I’d be interested in hearing your views on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Nobody who cares about not getting sued for libel is going to engage with your evidence free theorycrafting about who the leaker was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
moose47 posted:They have the luxury of saying that they believe in those things because they are in the minority. If they had gained the majority in 2016 I have no doubt that Heller, Citizen’s United, and Shelby County, would have been in just as much danger as Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
I don't think Ginny would see any point to taking the risk of giving the actual decision to these hypothetical operatives. She would just simply tell them and they would believe her, because she's the wife. That was always the big glaring flaw in the whole "Ginny leaked it" idea. She could just simply tell you and you would obviously just believe her because of who she is. The most likely explanation was that it really was a liberal clerk who decided they needed to give the country a chance to prepare for what to do after the decision, and they thought they would be able to keep their anonymity if they were cautious enough. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Probably the best circumstantial evidence would be if the investigation ends without resolution and the authorities never say why. Ultimately it is irrelevant and we won’t know the ultimate significance of there having been a leak at all for many years. Clarence Thomas’ wife is dangerous, but he is also dangerous and has basically unlimited power over us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
I ended up asking this in the Texas thread before realizing this might be a better one to get an actual answer. With states just going "lulzno" on abortions, what about Judaism and its take on it? How do they square the circle of halakhah allowing abortion with just going "Jesus sez no" and thus running afoul of the 1st amendment? I mean, i know the real answer but i'm curious about the fig leaf. It's not a magic bullet or anything but just more a head scratcher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
I'm not sure they'll bother with a fig leaf, they'll just recommend returning to Israel
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm not sure they'll bother with a fig leaf, they'll just recommend returning to Israel That was the real answer i was thinking of, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:I ended up asking this in the Texas thread before realizing this might be a better one to get an actual answer. With states just going "lulzno" on abortions, what about Judaism and its take on it? How do they square the circle of halakhah allowing abortion with just going "Jesus sez no" and thus running afoul of the 1st amendment? The argument that "my religion requires me to commit this extremely serious felony, so 1st amendment" has never worked. (edit: one weird small exception with native americans and peyote) Some reasonable accommodations often have to be made. "I guess we have to allow you to have abortions" is absolutely not going to be one of them. We wouldn't even allow people to smoke marijuana based on 1st amendment arguments. Rigel fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Court has gone back and forth between "what horrible old rich people want" and "Wait, maybe we shouldn't be high priests of the horrible" since the Lochner era and arguably since Dred Scott. I would say that the Taney Court were responding to legislative failures when they made the Dred Scott ruling: slavery had been an increasingly difficult political problem for decades, and had become so divisive that there was no real hope of any legislative solution, as the slave states and free states constantly pulled back and forth on all sorts of issues in Congress. Importantly, it wasn't just the Court stepping in to solve problems: it was the Court intervening in traditionally-legislative areas to take ownership of a problem they thought the legislature was politically incapable of solving. Many of the decisions now at risk follow in that same activist tradition. Bivens, for example, drinks pretty deeply from the well of "constitutionally, Congress was supposed to do something about this, but they haven't bothered and we think it's too important to leave unaddressed". At the same time, Dred Scott was also a fantastic illustration of why the Court can't just roll in and attempt to solve issues all by itself without heed to public support. In the end, it only deepened the divisions and radicalized the political split, leading to war and constitutional amendments just a few years later. Lochner, on the other hand, is just yet another terrible ruling from a particularly terrible set of justices. The Fuller Court was the same court that gave us Plessy v Ferguson and the Insular Cases, among other things, in addition to being extremely activist on economic and labor law. It wasn't consistent at all, either - the expansive freedom-of-contract principles Lochner created to prohibit government regulation of labor seemingly vanished into the fog when businesses argued that segregation laws violated those freedoms. It was just an activist Court doing whatever the hell it wanted, in active opposition to a Congress that frequently went so far as to override it. For example, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in response to the Fuller Court's legally-dubious 5-4 decision ruling that any useful income tax was essentially unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The argument that "my religion requires me to commit this extremely serious felony, so 1st amendment" has never worked. (edit: one weird small exception with native americans and peyote) Nawh that makes sense. Bigamy's another example come to think of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please look forward to the 6-3 decision re-segregating the country, penned by Thomas. If people in this country voted based on their shrewd policy preferences then we would not be where we are. Cimber posted:I find it interesting that the Roe decision gave NYC political cover to ignore the concealed carry decision of the day before. "Well, the court is a bunch of fuckin' hacks, so we don't need to follow what they said. Clarence Thomas made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it." What are you talking about? Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
[edit] retracted.
Cimber fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I find it interesting that the Roe decision gave NYC political cover to ignore the concealed carry decision of the day before. "Well, the court is a bunch of fuckin' hacks, so we don't need to follow what they said. Clarence Thomas made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it." That sounds interesting, is there something I can read about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
raminasi posted:That sounds interesting, is there something I can read about this? https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/new...aled-carry-law/
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The argument that "my religion requires me to commit this extremely serious felony, so 1st amendment" has never worked. (edit: one weird small exception with native americans and peyote) Except for, you know, all the Christian parents that kill their kids via medical neglect and don't face consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I find it interesting that the Roe decision gave NYC political cover to ignore the concealed carry decision of the day before. "Well, the court is a bunch of fuckin' hacks, so we don't need to follow what they said. Clarence Thomas made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it." I don’t see anything in their comments to suggest so far that they’re calling the supreme court illegitimate and saying they will ignore the ruling. If so, that would be interesting because if the supreme court is illegitimate, the next step is someone saying so openly and acting on that claim. Here, they seem to be looking for gaps or grey areas to operate within.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I find it interesting that the Roe decision gave NYC political cover to ignore the concealed carry decision of the day before. "Well, the court is a bunch of fuckin' hacks, so we don't need to follow what they said. Clarence Thomas made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it." This is nowhere near what they said. And no, I'm not doing the pedantry thing where I nitpick at an obvious paraphrase. They have expressed no intention whatsoever of ignoring the Supreme Court ruling. What they're saying is:
The full transcript of the Mayor's address provides much more detail and context, much of which was sorely lacking from the secondhand media reports. The whole thing is pretty long, but here's one mid-length excerpt that sums it up well: quote:Mayor Adams: Today's Supreme Court decision may have opened an additional river that is going to feed the sea of gun violence in our city and in our nation. Now is the time for every elected official, who cares about the safety of all Americans, to come together and respond thoroughly and comprehensively to this appalling decision. Our work begins now to start saving New Yorkers and Americans. Police Commissioner?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
I'm curious about something regarding the right to an abortion that I haven't seen anybody talk about yet. The most compelling reason for me for why everyone has the right to an abortion is the idea of bodily autonomy: that no person has a legal right to someone else's body or body parts, even if they need them to survive. You can't legally be compelled to undergo an organ transplant, or a blood transfusion, or -- it would seem logical to me -- a pregnancy. But Roe v Wade was decided on the right to privacy, and while it's devastating and infuriating that it was overturned, what would happen if someone sued for abortion access using McFall v Shimp as the precedent, which was decided six years after Roe? I mean, I have no doubt that the current court would just decide whatever the gently caress they want regardless of what the law says, since they're completely illegitimate and don't make decisions based on the law, but I'm still curious about what people think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:drat I wonder how it feels to take that huge risk to heroically warn the president and congress what was coming and their response was to vote millions more for militarized police to suppress the protests and then make sure the fundraising emails were ready to go when the decision dropped Supreme court clerks may be smart and educated, but they are also often young and naive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is nowhere near what they said. And no, I'm not doing the pedantry thing where I nitpick at an obvious paraphrase. They have expressed no intention whatsoever of ignoring the Supreme Court ruling. Fair points. I retract my statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:50
|
|