|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I guess all 50 state supreme courts have sent an amicus brief telling SCOTUS to not rule in favor of the NC Republicans. Yeah, so?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I guess all 50 state supreme courts have sent an amicus brief telling SCOTUS to not rule in favor of the NC Republicans. You think they care? This is the culmination of a 30 year project. The GOP has to deal somehow with the uncomfortable fact that in every election except one since 1992 they have lost the popular vote. They could A) Change the party and become more acceptable to the people or B) change the system so they are always in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
They technically won it in 2004 but that was by leaning on some all-time-high patriotism highs for an incumbent (and ignoring Diebold's CEO openly talking about securing the election for Bush).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 05:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They technically won it in 2004 but that was by leaning on some all-time-high patriotism highs for an incumbent (and ignoring Diebold's CEO openly talking about securing the election for Bush). Yeah, thats the one I was referring too. Every other election in the past 30 years the democrats won the popular election. Same for aggregate senate and house seats too if i remember correctly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yeah, thats the one I was referring too. Every other election in the past 30 years the democrats won the popular election. Same for aggregate senate and house seats too if i remember correctly. The past 34 years! They lost the popular vote in 1992 by nearly 6 million.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The past 34 years! They lost the popular vote in 1992 by nearly 6 million. Clinton - 44M Bush - 39M Perot - 19M
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Clinton - 44M Yes. Sorry, by "they" I was referring to the GOP, as you stated things in your first post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Oh hey. A religion vs homosexuality case the Supreme Court didn't trample all over itself to see how they could justify something horrific. Of course, the religion in question is Orthodox Judaism, so maybe it doesn't count? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-orthodox-jewish-university-must-recognize-lgbtq-gro-rcna45272
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 06:39
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:Oh hey. A religion vs homosexuality case the Supreme Court didn't trample all over itself to see how they could justify something horrific. Of course it doesn't. Just a couple of years ago, even before Barrett was on the court, they ruled (in the same session!) that a Muslim pending state execution did not need to have an imam present, and then a couple months later granted a Buddhist demanding a Buddhist spiritual advisor be present a stay of execution, saying he needed to have his request fulfilled. The only difference is Muslims are icky, apparently. The only religion that actually counts is Christianity; they can discriminate as much as they want, but no one else can, and no one is allowed to even imply Christians have anything less than superior status, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
killer_robot posted:Oh hey. A religion vs homosexuality case the Supreme Court didn't trample all over itself to see how they could justify something horrific. Bit of a technicality here, since the reason it got kicked out was procedural. If it made it up to SCOTUS in the "normal" course, wouldn't be surprised to see a different result. Orthodox Jews are definitely "inside the tent" for most of the conservative movement's purposes, so I'd be shocked if they didn't get some bones thrown their way. They've already got Alito 100% on side, which seems like a good omen for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Bit of a technicality here, since the reason it got kicked out was procedural. If it made it up to SCOTUS in the "normal" course, wouldn't be surprised to see a different result. Orthodox Jews are definitely "inside the tent" for most of the conservative movement's purposes, so I'd be shocked if they didn't get some bones thrown their way. They've already got Alito 100% on side, which seems like a good omen for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
So entities with sincerely held religious beliefs can decide a) What medicines an employee can take b) What treatments an employee can take c) What doctors an employee can see and soon up d) If they can legally descriminate against an individual based on their gender, sexual identity and perhaps even race.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
If honor killings were a big part of Christianity I would expect this court to issue a ruling that those are ok when the person doing the killing is doing so for the white reason and their victim was one of those people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If honor killings were a big part of Christianity I would expect this court to issue a ruling that those are ok when the person doing the killing is doing so for the white reason and their victim was one of those people. Isn't there a state steaming ahead with a "shoot people getting abortions" law?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So entities with sincerely held religious beliefs can decide
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
The RFRA was a mistake. Though even without it we'd still have these god awful decisions because Domionists give no fucks about anything but control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The RFRA was a mistake. Though even without it we'd still have these god awful decisions because Domionists give no fucks about anything but control. I mean they gutted the VRA and dared Congress to fix the law, knowing that they wouldn’t
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
The Honest Elections Project everyone: https://twitter.com/EthanHerenstein/status/1570406812658335746?s=20&t=5isMgnpRSvRHTZ4d8bt2xQ quote:Those documents were sealed for decades following ratification. This created a vacuum in the historical record, into which Pinckney strode. In 1818, when the government was gathering records from the Convention for publication, Pinckney submitted a document that, he claimed, represented his original plan. It was uncannily similar to the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
quote:“The so-called draft has been so utterly discredited that no instructed person will use it as it stands as a basis for constitutional or historical reasoning.” So what I'm getting from this is the court will rule this document is the real constitution
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what I'm getting from this is the court will rule this document is the real constitution Whatever the SCOTUS says is real is real. Who's going to stop them? Biden? Congress?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Whatever gets Samuel Alito closer to his dream of getting to legally shoot and kill non-Christians is what will drive this jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Whatever the SCOTUS says is real is real. Who's going to stop them? Biden? Congress? Technically they could, which is all the more reason to come to the only logical conclusion that they are complicit when they do gently caress all. vvvvvv fixed typo virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
Complicit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
so did they stop looking for the leaker of the Dobbs opinion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:so did they stop looking for the leaker of the Dobbs opinion? The Jan 6th committee is going to interview Ginni Thomas so I'm sure they'll let us know Piell fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:so did they stop looking for the leaker of the Dobbs opinion? The Supreme Court has reportedly formed a committee to look into it. A couple of justices have said this month that the report with their conclusions will be finished "soon", but other than that they've been very tight-lipped about it. And the media largely doesn't give a poo poo until the actual results come out; the only media outlets laser-focused on every tidbit of news about the probe are Fox News and National Review.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
The Onion filed an amicus in Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio and it’s amazing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...cus%20Brief.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? If it's about men controlling women, where is the control? If it was really about controlling women, I imagine conservatives would propose a loophole in a ban that says the abortion can happen if the husband or father allows it. Sometimes the man wants the abortion too. Like, imagine you're a man from a conservative religious community and your daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock. That can be really embarrassing. Maybe you want your daughter to get an abortion so as to save face. Or maybe you want your wife to get an abortion because having a baby right now would derail your career. But I never hear conservatives talk about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? If it's about men controlling women, where is the control? That's literally already what they do. Conservatives still get abortions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah, but they have to be sneaky about it. Why don't they propose it be in law?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? If it's about men controlling women, where is the control? Things being "embarrassing" or requiring one to "save face" are methods of control. Requiring that a man be involved in the process, for his own social standing's sake, means men control women But aside from that, they don't have to say these things because they don't have to put up a coherent or internally consistent set of policies. They've built a culture where everyone who hears their call for a universal abortion ban can tell themselves they'll benefit from selective enforcement and a social code of silence (you wouldn't want to be the reason your friend's daughter gets embarrassed or has to save face, right?). They can thus appeal to the groups who really do support a universal ban without alienating the ones who recognize practical reality
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Is there a part of "we are legally controlling things that would otherwise fall under the purview of autonomy" where it's not clear that the restriction of autonomy is thus control?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
If I were to incarcerate you, I'd be controlling you. It's the same when a country like ours goes out of its way to lock half of the population out of the ability to exercise their corporeal autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Yeah, but they have to be sneaky about it. Why don't they propose it be in law? Because this only allows control over women directly related to them and that's not the goal
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Yeah, but they have to be sneaky about it. Why don't they propose it be in law? Proposed U.S. law would force women seeking abortions to get partner permission
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Yeah, but they have to be sneaky about it. Why don't they propose it be in law? In addition to all the other responses you've gotten on this topic, I'll add that the plausible deniability they have right now is extremely politically useful. A lot of people in this country think that the religious faction driving the curtailment of reproductive rights genuinely, truly cares about the lives of fetuses, and proposing a law like that would cause that support to evaporate overnight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
They also want to live in a society where the laws protect but not bind them, and bind and not protect everyone else. Same thinking behind the only moral abortion is my abortion and the like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Yeah, but they have to be sneaky about it. Why don't they propose it be in law? The law does not bind the conservative base, so you have to read any ban as having an "except for with the consent of a white man" clause. Probably half the white men you know have illegal machineguns, for instance. slurm fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They do We hear stories about women being forced to carry their rapist's baby to term. Who benefits from this? Not the rapist, the baby is evidence of his crime. Not the woman's family. And not woman. The only person who benefits is the fetus itself, if you buy the notion that the fetus is a human being. slurm posted:The law does not bind the conservative base, so you have to read any ban as having an "except for with the consent of a white man" clause. Probably have the white men you know have illegal machineguns, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? If it's about men controlling women, where is the control? It's about punishing women for the crime of having sex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:33
|
|