|
Accubitus posted: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. There's basically two arguments. The one that I don't agree with but could at least somewhat respect is that the fetus is a person with human rights, and you don't get to just kill that person without explanation just on a whim. The grosser and more dystopian argument (which is actually in the opinion too!) is the cold greater good for society argument that we need more babies. We have a child shortage (really?), and if you have a child growing inside of you, well its just too bad if you don't want to be pregnant, the state needs that baby to be born.... for economic reasons I guess?
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Rigel posted:There's basically two arguments. The one that I don't agree with but could at least somewhat respect is that the fetus is a person with human rights, and you don't get to just kill that person without explanation just on a whim. I am not aware of any economic argument for needing more babies in the decision. Is this the "domestic supply" footnote thing? Because that's still not what it says.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
I don't think Rigel is saying that SCOTUS made these arguments but just talking about the general arguments made. The "dystopian" argument about needing more babies to be born here is usually cover for racist tribalism. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not aware of any economic argument for needing more babies in the decision. Is this the "domestic supply" footnote thing? Because that's still not what it says. It might be in a concurrence, but I remember seeing some very gross discussion about the domestic supply of babies written by someone in the majority. edit: it was a footnote
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think Rigel is saying that SCOTUS made these arguments but just talking about the general arguments made. That argument also includes the desire to force white women into traditional family arrangements to break their autonomy and ability to participate in politics and the public sphere, while killing or pushing into severe poverty all poor and nonwhite women. It’s pretty dystopian.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Rigel posted:It might be in a concurrence, but I remember seeing some very gross discussion about the domestic supply of babies written by someone in the majority. I wrote that up earlier, I'll copy the text of that post here so it preserves quoted language. Note this was in response to a different user and a specific tweet, but the underlying game of misrepresentation telephone is the same: https://twitter.com/drgjackbrown/status/1522738724416630784?s=21&t=PGFR_gMRrwC_AkugnLt2IA There's a whole loving layer cake of misrepresentations here, none of which redeem the Alito decision (of course), but which pointlessly confuse the claim (and slander the root cited text) several ways at once. The tweet is citing a footnote from page 34 of the draft decision - it's something Alito wrote, not Barrett. The citing paragraph is as follows (internal citations omitted): quote:Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of unmarried women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases, that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance; that States have increasingly adopted “safe haven" laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.[footnote citation here] They also claim that many people now have a new appreciation of fetal life and that when prospective parents who want to have a child view a sonogram, they typically have no doubt that what they see is their daughter or son. So the purpose of this citation is not to say that there needs to be a domestic supply of infants, but rather that there is existing demand for infant children to adopt, and that therefore the burden of a pregnancy isn't so terrible. In the context of the broader opinion, this is also not Alito expressing his own opinion or analysis; instead, it's part of Alito giving a both-sides-have-different-opinions equivocation about developments in society since Roe. In the next couple paragraphs he says all these opinions on both sides don't effect the court's decision and will instead be reflected in state law once Roe is gone. To be clear, all of this is horrible and also terrible legal reasoning, but it's not what the tweet's saying it is. But it gets even more convoluted: The cited quote, including the supposedly damning "domestic supply of infants," isn't coming from a brief or a pro-abortion source of any kind; it's from page 23 of a completely anodyne CDC report, Vital and Health Statistics, from 2008 (being cited as a book, it looks like, instead of a periodical). The report is using the language about domestic supply in a completely neutral sense as part of the conclusion paragraphs on historical trends in adoption demography. The footnote also appends a citation to unrelated data from CDC, and botches the web address, which is actually https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a-keystat.htm#adoption . [this botched link is the only thing changed in the final decision, I believe.] As far as I can tell, Barrett never wrote any kind of brief on this; the closest I can find is that she raised the general "modern adoption policies mean forcing women to give birth isn't so bad!" claim during oral arguments in this case last year. So to be clear, this is a tweet misattributing a footnote to a misrepresented claim from a moot section of an opinion by a different person, which is itself mis-citing two separate sources of information. All of which is to say, that twitter account probably shouldn't be treated as a good source for legal analysis...or probably anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Yet it so cleanly expresses his white supremacist ideological world view in a way that can't possibly be coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
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. Shelby county is one of the biggest crimes of the court in decades and Obama should’ve had the conservative justices rounded up after that decision. That’d require Obama to stand for anything other than  though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:There's basically two arguments. The one that I don't agree with but could at least somewhat respect is that the fetus is a person with human rights, and you don't get to just kill that person without explanation just on a whim. It's hard to really explain just how deeply racists have bought into the whole Great Replacement thing if you haven't experienced it More White Babies is a huge priority for them
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
I wonder if Alito/Thomas will be as rabid against the EPA
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:It's hard to really explain just how deeply racists have bought into the whole Great Replacement thing if you haven't experienced it https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568?s=20&t=LGjCITQeONLoey8Wn0FmhA
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
This is my Rep, who on January 6th said that “Hitler was right about one thing, you have to get the children” as a way to say Rs need to take over education. Also, Trump endorsed our local dumbass who runs his own private Christian school which is not accredited while also running a farm that takes millions in government subsidies while he bitched about socialism. He ran for state rep and won. He then ran for state Senate two years later. He then got state fame when he signed onto a group that wants to kick Chicago out of Illinois. When the pandemic happened, he sued the governor over and over but the only judge that would rule in his favor was from his hometown. He said that it was this that made him run for Governor but everyone knew he was going to as soon as he became a senator. He is now the likely R candidate against a decently popular governor but all I can get are Bruce Rauner/Donald Trump vibes (side note, current governor has been making trips to primary states…).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:It's hard to really explain just how deeply racists have bought into the whole Great Replacement thing if you haven't experienced it I've seen this sort of rhetoric applied to other stuff, like "hey liberals did you know Woodrow Wilson was a big ol' racist? Think about that next time you advocate income taxes and workplace regulations." And, of course, who can forget "this historical socialist guy had a bad and/or bigoted opinion on something. How can socialists live with themselves knowing this? Ergo capitalism is good." Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
"Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas" petition passes 230K signatures Can a Supreme Court Justice even be impeached?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:"Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas" petition passes 230K signatures Yes. Also, can you imagine what the Founder's would think of Catholics on the Court?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:"Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas" petition passes 230K signatures Also all Federal judges. Roughly a couple times per decade congress has to begin the process of impeaching a judge, who usually resigns in disgrace before they go through with the Senate trial. edit: we are about due for one of these, last time was 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
If the threat of impeachment stays the hand of Thomas/Alito from a future case like restricting the EPA next year, that's a win in my book
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:If the threat of impeachment stays the hand of Thomas/Alito from a future case like restricting the EPA next year, that's a win in my book They’re doing that next week
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Zoran posted:They’re doing that next week
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:"Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas" petition passes 230K signatures Doesn't that take 2/3 of the senate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Doesn't that take 2/3 of the senate? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
2/3rds of senate milestone to pass anything important will be as infamous to the future history of this country in explaining the clusterfuck everything currently is in as 3/5th compromise was to the original constitutional convention and all of the harm that caused down the road. Haha yeah right like there will be a future history of this country that isn’t straight up propaganda written by a Theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Apologies if there's a better thread for this but is there a good protest multistream? I know during 2020/21 BLM protests there was a good go-to I can't remember its name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:wide pluralities support both democratic issues and candidates, however the geographic distribution of people means that a small minority control pretty much all levels of government. people being horrible and regressive isn't really the issue so much as the government isn't at all representative of the people. https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1540691470495010816 https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1540355146290446340 https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1540349263699275776 It's no coincidence that the far right has been really big on undermining democracy in recent decades. Their positions are not popular, but they're winning anyway due to benefit of weird rules like districting, the electoral college, and "equal representation per state". The Supreme Court is just the latest in that non-majoritarian bucket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. I'm reading the Thomas opinion on the NY 2nd amendment case, and this guy is loving out there. For example, he has, and I'm not kidding, almost 30 pages talking about laws from the middle ages. quote:When handguns were introduced in England during the Tudor and early Stuart eras, they did prompt royal efforts at suppression. For example, Henry VIII issued several proclamations decrying the proliferation of handguns, and Parliament passed several statutes restricting their posses- sion. See, e.g., 6 Hen. 8 c. 13, §1 (1514); 25 Hen. 8 c. 17, §1 (1533); 33 Hen. 8 c. 6 (1541); Prohibiting Use of Handguns and Crossbows (Jan. 1537), in 1 Tudor Royal Proclamations 249 (P. Hughes & J. Larkin eds. 1964). But Henry VIII’s displeasure with handguns arose not primarily from con- cerns about their safety but rather their inefficacy. Henry VIII worried that handguns threatened Englishmen’s pro- ficiency with the longbow—a weapon many believed was crucial to English military victories in the 1300s and 1400s, including the legendary English victories at Crécy and Ag- incourt. See R. Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow 32, 34 (1903); L. Schwoerer, Gun Culture in Early Modern Eng- land 54 (2016) (Schwoerer). See page 39 of the PDF if you want to follow along. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Why the hell should I care what Henry the 8th thought about guns, and what does that have to do with states having 100 year old laws on the books about concealed carry that Thomas and company wiped away. 100 years of legal jurisprudence and states rights suddenly was decided not to matter by a right wing activist court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Some more on this: The fact that Montana gets two senators and NY gets two senators really tilts the advantage to the low population states. Montanna has 1 senator for every 500,000 people. New York gets 1 senator for every four million people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't think Rigel is saying that SCOTUS made these arguments but just talking about the general arguments made. Or outright Christian Dominionism leaning into racist tribalism ala the Quiverfull cult. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
First response from Russian asset Christopher Lynn Hedges on the Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe V. Wade. https://twitter.com/ChrisLynnHedges/status/1541084661597835271?s=20&t=hqaBHwwcBvmF7DpXBGQhIw It’s not just Roe V Wade they got rid of. They’re allowing state funds to subsidize private schools along with other heinous poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) MLSM fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Wrong thread, sorry.
enahs fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
So SCOTUS is also expected to rule against the EPA next week, effectively preventing any government agency from creating and enforcing its own rules, basically halting any and all regulations created by the EPA that are not explicitly written by Congress? I assume they'll expand that to other agencies or even departments, like the Department of Labor, Education, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
All those people mad that JFK was going to be beholden to a foreign power were decades ahead of their time. England figured this poo poo out in the 16th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I assume they'll expand that to other agencies or even departments, like the Department of Labor, Education, etc? This is a fantastic and likely accurate guess. I'll only caveat this by saying that when a Republican administration is using those agencies to actively harm people, then the agency's actions should not be questioned by the court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:All those people mad that JFK was going to be beholden to a foreign power were decades ahead of their time. England figured this poo poo out in the 16th century. American Catholics are more pro choice and way more socially progressive than every group of Protestants besides black Protestants but okay I’m sure anti-Papism is a great strategy than doesn’t have any implications about Hispanic immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:American Catholics are more pro choice and way more socially progressive than every group of Protestants besides black Protestants but okay I’m sure anti-Papism is a great strategy than doesn’t have any implications about Hispanic immigrants. Presbyterians have female ministers and were one of the first churches to perform same sex wedding ceremonies. Like, I agree the anti Catholic stuff isn't terribly constructive, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not aware of any economic argument for needing more babies in the decision. Is this the "domestic supply" footnote thing? Because that's still not what it says. Boomers are afraid they won't get their retirement benefits without a bunch more taxpaying youngin's to pay into the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Presbyterians have female ministers and were one of the first churches to perform same sex wedding ceremonies. The groups polled in this particular were white vs black and Protestants vs Catholics so… That being said conservative American Catholics are basically just Protestants with extra sexual hang ups anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:American Catholics are more pro choice and way more socially progressive than every group of Protestants besides black Protestants but okay I’m sure anti-Papism is a great strategy than doesn’t have any implications about Hispanic immigrants. It is a small minority of American Catholics but there is a sect of American Catholicism that has been the driver of reactionary revanchism in the courts. The opus dei lawyers and judges that brought us to this point can't just be shrugged off as a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Had some unsettling thoughts on how states are going to start to justify banning contraception after SCOTUS overturns that one too. Pills like Plan B are capable of stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It can also prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg. this would technically classify it as a form of birth control. Right? If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, which would be considered abortion. Since you never know if the egg is fertilized when the pill is used, then some extreme step must be taken to stop this from happening by banning contraception that works in this way. On the flip side, Plan B can be used for either protection or murder, just like guns can be used for protection or murder! It’s going to be a fun one…
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:Had some unsettling thoughts on how states are going to start to justify banning contraception after SCOTUS overturns that one too. It’s abundantly clear they don’t give the first gently caress about logical consistency. They are imposing a Christo-fascist ideology and will twist their words whatever way they need to on whatever day that is most convenient.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:The groups polled in this particular were white vs black and Protestants vs Catholics so… Without seeing the poll, I'm guessing their definition of Protestant includes nondenominational big-E Evangelicals, aka the crazy fundie demographic. That's going to skew the average a lot compared to almost every mainline Protestant denomination. But yes, this line of argument as a whole isn't terribly productive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:20
|
|
