|
ulmont posted:Guys, even the religion thread has a no abortion rule, can we not do the religion abortion bit here? Lmao do we actually have a thread for religious nutjobs
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Was thinking about how much funnier and lamer Alito's tantrum over Serwer's piece from some months back is in light of all this. https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1522570893897220099?s=20&t=YEaFEdyABQoroEzbmA4cIA From his response back in October to Alito's whining: quote:Last month, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the Supreme Court’s critics are wrong. The Court is not “a dangerous cabal” that is “deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way, in the middle of the night, hidden from public view,” he said. Reading aloud from a piece I wrote in the aftermath of the Court’s recent ruling on an abortion law, Alito insisted that it was “false and inflammatory” to say that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision had been nullified in Texas. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/alito-supreme-court-texas-abortion/620339/ Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 14:39 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Was thinking about how much funnier and lamer Alito's tantrum over Serwer's piece from some months back is in light of all this. This is why folks need to stop focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives, they don’t care and it’s actually a feature. Conservatives would sooner abandon the Bible than change their personal beliefs. It’s time Dems realize this and call things what they are in very explicit ways: a terrorist organization that is hostile to the American public and delegitimizes major branches of the US government.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The minutia of “these Christians X, those Christians Y” is absolutely not relevant. Christian dominionists are preparing to kill abortion rights in the US for religious and political reasons, with their eyes on gay rights and other things they've open;y and publicly said they want to get rid of, so yes it's relevant and nobody's holding a gun to your head to force you to read it (probably). Feel free to leave at any time. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Conservatives would sooner abandon the Bible than change their personal beliefs. Conservatives abandoned the bible long ago. For many of them it's just a convenient cover and scores them points with the religious idiots they've duped. See: the religious right falling over themselves to worship Trump and people like him because they offer to hurt the people that Talibangelicals want to hurt and it gets those people to the polls to vote for them while they do what they can to make sure everyone else has to crawl through broken glass to try and vote them out of office.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Pointing out blatant hypcrisy is a fool's game that only serves to let you pat yourself on the rear end and say "Well TECHNICALLY I am the winner.  " while the other team goes home with the trophy. Hypocrisy will never be acknowledged by the ones doing it because there will always be an ironclad excuse about why it's different for them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Pointing out blatant hypcrisy is a fool's game that only serves to let you pat yourself on the rear end and say "Well TECHNICALLY I am the winner. I don't remember the source so I unfortunately can't cite it in full, but I've seen the argument made that for reactionaries, hypocrisy is actually a selling point because it demonstrates power. If you have the power to be a hypocrite without consequence, it means you're above the rules that bind lesser people and force them to be consistent. In this framework, pointing out hypocrisy isn't just pointless, it's actually counterproductive because what it does is point out to your enemies that they have power and are using it to get what they want while you remain bound by the rules. It's a way to embolden your enemies, not to diminish them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I read the summary of the leak that was done by someone a few pages back. In non lawyer speak, what is the flaw in the leaked document's argument? His argument countermands the 9th Amendment. The Bill of Rights only makes legal sense if they also confer a right to privacy. It's like how you have a right to breathe air, or relieve yourself when your bladder is full: this stuff only makes sense when you accept a significant list of prerequisite rights. For some reason, people see this absolutely necessary, solid-as-the-ground-you're-standing-on logic as legally shaky. Those people have of course been trying to make that argument for 50 years, or don't know enough to know any better. In contrast to this, Alito's argument does not cite any amendment, and it does not cite any precedent. His argument is strictly, "I don't think the constitution confers a privacy theory right," but it is not able to articulate an alternative explanation for the original privacy rights presumed so available to citizens of modern western societies that it was instilled as a basis of a significant fraction of the Bill of Rights. In essence, Alito argues "la la la I can't see it" while being incapable of articulating any other explanation. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:29 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I don't remember the source so I unfortunately can't cite it in full, but I've seen the argument made that for reactionaries, hypocrisy is actually a selling point because it demonstrates power. If you have the power to be a hypocrite without consequence, it means you're above the rules that bind lesser people and force them to be consistent. In this framework, pointing out hypocrisy isn't just pointless, it's actually counterproductive because what it does is point out to your enemies that they have power and are using it to get what they want while you remain bound by the rules. It's a way to embolden your enemies, not to diminish them. With respect, I believe that is slightly incorrect. Reacting in anger or disbelief or horror will embolden them. Call out the hypocrisy with ridicule, especially en masse, can have the opposite effect.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:With respect, I believe that is slightly incorrect. Reacting in anger or disbelief or horror will embolden them. Call out the hypocrisy with ridicule, especially en masse, can have the opposite effect. Only if they see consequences for it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
it is a brand of originalism that falls apart when you actually analyze the founders intent it's always been that way
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
The notion that the founders, in the way that they conducted business, in the way that they governed their colonies then states, in the way that they spoke to the public, in the letters they wrote, in the conversations they held, and yes, in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they wrote, somehow did not understand privacy to be the right that Roe argued it to be is silly. Plainly, facially silly. In a sane world, any appellant arguing the contrary would be laughed out of court, then disbarred should they continue to waste the court's time by insisting otherwise. Fake edit: it's also hilarious when you consider that rights to privacy and autonomy that the modern conservative movement generally has been pushing for absolutely confirms that they too deeply believe that privacy is a right in the way that Roe describes. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:38 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
I asked earlier in the thread about a thought experiment on what would be the effective difference if the Supreme Court outright stated they don’t care and made their ruling anyway. The consensus was “nothing”. Therefor the next logical step is for everyone in this thread to recognize the Supreme Court is illegitimate. The Dems should ignore the Supreme Court rulings and state as much. There is precedence for it and there is nothing in the constitution granting explicit powers to the Supreme Court to enact their rulings. This ruling should be the trigger for packing the courts or outright decommissioning the Supreme Court. The fact that it hasn’t means Dems have accepted and support the Supreme Court being a fascist super power in the country. Bel Shazar posted:With respect, I believe that is slightly incorrect. Reacting in anger or disbelief or horror will embolden them. Call out the hypocrisy with ridicule, especially en masse, can have the opposite effect. I strongly feel this is false as not only are there zero consequences but it requires shame to function. Plus one only has to look at the modern Republican Party to see pointing out their hypocrisy has had little to no effect. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 17:42 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
The only moral privacy is my privacy (to scam money from others while praising Jesus and bossing around the women around me)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Also Alito has defended qualified immunity whose current form is an invention of the Court. The right to privacy has a rock-solid foundation in comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
the supreme court is very silly, and the erosion of its legitimacy will i hope be a slim silver lining of this new phase in its war on life
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Slaan posted:The only moral privacy is my privacy (to scam money from others while praising Jesus and bossing around the women around me) one of the most upsetting parts of my canvassing in 2016 is that basically nobody argues that privacy is not one of their rights under the 9th amendment like, I can recall a couple of very contrarian weirdos who I was able to really get in with, and I know they were just trolling me for laughs and it was fun it's just bizarre, in a country where quite literally 99% of the population understands privacy to be a fundamental, core American value, our ruling class is stuffing its fingers and its ears and legalistically pretending that it is not a core component of Who We Are ™ people don't even really have to understand what the Bill of Rights or the Constitution are, they just fundamentally understand and expect privacy to be one of their rights, and they to so in a way that is very much in line with what Roe very cleverly articulated
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:
I dunno the tiny hands meme seemed to land on Trump. I think what you're seeing is Americans are generally poo poo at ridicule so it doesn't work well. That's the user's fault, not the tool. People have been pointing it out and going on about how horrible it is. That's not ridicule. gently caress nevermind I'm basically saying wave your wand and say 'Riddikulus'. But I just don't think we've come anywhere close to attempting actual ridicule and shame.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Won't have an effect on the Court but it certainly upset Alito that Serwer called a spade a spade when it came to the shadow docket and that the Court was gutting Roe by allowing the Texas law to stand.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I dunno the tiny hands meme seemed to land on Trump. I think what you're seeing is Americans are generally poo poo at ridicule so it doesn't work well. That's the user's fault, not the tool. Ridicule alone isn't going to do anything though if there isn't any "real" action to go along with it. It just becomes a bunch of people sharing SNL skits with each other while the other team keeps doing whatever it wants. At best, it just upsets Tucker Carlson, which is never a bad thing, but it's not nearly enough and does nothing to address the actual issue.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Ridicule alone isn't going to do anything though if there isn't any "real" action to go along with it. It just becomes a bunch of people sharing SNL skits with each other while the other team keeps doing whatever it wants. Totally agreed. No single thing is enough. E: except for the last line. Calling out with ridicule needs to be part of a combination of approaches. On its own, mostly useless, absolutely... but as an enhancement to more impactful approaches it can do much. But yes 100% agreed it does nothing on its own except maybe rankle a bit. Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Totally agreed. No single thing is enough. Suspending habeas corpus would be enough. Or, less extreme, packing the courts.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Pointing out blatant hypcrisy is a fool's game that only serves to let you pat yourself on the rear end and say "Well TECHNICALLY I am the winner. This is because it's not hypocrisy as such. There's no cognitive dissonance cause they were lying the entire time.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:His argument countermands the 9th Amendment. Perhaps more important, his argument undermines most (pro) firearm laws. The 2nd Amendment mentions the people owning guns as part of a militia. It doesn't explicitly mention open or concealed carry in public, doesn't mention a right to self defense...etc. If I was a legislator in a deep blue state I'd be writing up a whole shitload of laws that gut gun rights, explicitly based on Alito's argument if this draft does end up as the final result. Sure, he and the other conservatives will immediately and hypocritically strike it down, probably via shadow docket so they don't have to explain themselves, but if they go this way then Dems needs to fight back in some way other than screaming to vote as the GOP makes it increasingly harder to do so. Governments at every level need to just ignore every single shadow docket ruling as well because if the SCOTUS can't explain their actions then the ruling should be ignored in its entirety. Even if it's a 9-0 slam dunk no poo poo ruling the justices need to explain why. Groovelord Neato posted:Also Alito has defended qualified immunity whose current form is an invention of the Court. The right to privacy has a rock-solid foundation in comparison. An invention by the court after Congress explicitly choose not to create it when debating a law where the topic was raised. It's a naked case of judicial activism on the part of the courts to further strengthen the courts' (and law enforcement's) own power. The proper response to that ruling at the time would've been for the POTUS to say "gently caress you we're locking these assholes up and if you try to legislate from the bench again you're going to join them."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is because it's not hypocrisy as such. There's no cognitive dissonance cause they were lying the entire time. My go-to example with this is welfare. They always have a problem with these "welfare queens" that only exist in their imaginations, but when it's them or someone who meets their personal criteria for approval collecting unemployment benefits, it immediately becomes "Well there's nothing wrong with needing a little help when a hardworking person falls on hard times."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Therefor the next logical step is for everyone in this thread to recognize the Supreme Court is illegitimate. The Supreme Court is not per se illegitimate. However, if it issues a ruling that:
It is absolutely possible for the Supreme Court to consist of experts who make pronouncements about the law that are reasoned and properly considered. Alito's draft ruling in Dobbs is not an instance of that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Fake edit: it's also hilarious when you consider that rights to privacy and autonomy that the modern conservative movement generally has been pushing for absolutely confirms that they too deeply believe that privacy is a right in the way that Roe describes. I would dispute this to some extent, in that the philosophical fault line between Democrats and Republicans is whether such personal liberties should be inalienable rights or revokable privileges. This is part of the reason such blatant hypocrisies never bother them, because they always envision themselves as holding the sword. But only to some extent, because the Republicans have very little coherent ideology or commitment to any particular political principles. Even tropes like the GOP's love of "law and order" can be quickly put aside in favor of immediate power objectives - as made patently clear by the chorus of Republican support for blowing up judicial precedent and authority in pursuit of stripping power from women.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The Supreme Court is not per se illegitimate. However, if it issues a ruling that: “Per se” seems like it’s doing a lot of work here to me. The constitution grants the Supreme Court zero powers to enforce their ruling. The whole thing is built on a gentlemen’s agreement (excuse the gendered language).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I would dispute this to some extent, in that the philosophical fault line between Democrats and Republicans is whether such personal liberties should be inalienable rights or revokable privileges. This is part of the reason such blatant hypocrisies never bother them, because they always envision themselves as holding the sword. But only to some extent, because the Republicans have very little coherent ideology or commitment to any particular political principles. Even tropes like the GOP's love of "law and order" can be quickly put aside in favor of immediate power objectives - as made patently clear by the chorus of Republican support for blowing up judicial precedent and authority in pursuit of stripping power from women. This reminds me of that famous/infamous Frank Wilhoit comment from a few years ago: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." The ideological justifications the right and its associated jurists put forward in support of this proposition change but that's the core principle, which means I would argue it is actually pretty coherent over time. The stated justification for rolling back abortion rights (or any other rights) may change, but the result is the expansion of the power of the in-group over the out-group, and that's consistently the basic objective of the reactionary movement, no matter what strategy is being pursued at any given moment.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The Supreme Court is not per se illegitimate. Yes it is and it has been since Bush v. Gore when 5 conservatives decided "we want our guy to win, gently caress your recount." The fact that 3(?) current members of the SCOTUS were part of the GOP legal efforts to subvert the FL recount only further reinforces this and underscores how it the GOP has thoroughly captured it as another means for them to force their goals upon the rest of the country.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:It is absolutely possible for the Supreme Court to consist of experts who make pronouncements about the law that are reasoned and properly considered. from whose ranks are these experts drawn? how did that group come to occupy its commanding position? who decides which and whose expertise is valid? you're essentially claiming that apolitical governance is not just possible but desirable. this requires a denial of reality and history, and has the consequence of more organized, motivated, and clear-eyed factions ignoring your ideals and getting on with the business of securing control and achieving the outcomes they prefer. being right, being funny, being "properly considered": none of these things save anyone. only power can do that. only being in a position to decide what happens will help you decide what happens.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes it is and it has been since Bush v. Gore when 5 conservatives decided "we want our guy to win, gently caress your recount." The fact that 3(?) current members of the SCOTUS were part of the GOP legal efforts to subvert the FL recount only further reinforces this and underscores how it the GOP has thoroughly captured it as another means for them to force their goals upon the rest of the country. even if i granted the legitimacy of the court, which is something no one the least in touch with the facts and their own human decency would do, it was lost as soon as they faked-until-they-made judicial review
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Does any other country's Supreme Court even work like ours where it has a veto over the legislature?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
This ruling really feels like some kind of “beginning of the end” for America doesn’t it? I’m not saying America will cease to exist or anything but I think the pretense of being any sort of egalitarian democracy is finally falling off to reveal the raw psychotic malice that’s always been hiding just underneath the surface. I really struggle to imagine any sort of future that isn’t Republicans taking increasingly large bites out of people’s civil rights while Democrats shrug and make increasingly pathetic excuses for their constant failures. Gay marriage is done, interracial marriage is done. Hell, I seriously believe I might live to see slavery brought back in some capacity. Yes, legitimately believe Republicans will do that if they get the chance. And there really don’t seem to be any options on the table (that don’t violate SA’s TOS) to pursue. What’s that? Vote D harder? LMAO gently caress off. They are campaigning for anti choice candidates as we speak. Do you really think they won’t do the same for any other issue? So… yeah. Not really an argument. Just kind of in awe that I’m living in this particular moment.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Hell, I seriously believe I might live to see slavery brought back in some capacity. Don't need to bring it back it's always been legal in one capacity and this Court certainly isn't gonna take kindly to defendants' rights.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:00
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Does any other country's Supreme Court even work like ours where it has a veto over the legislature? Yes, it's extremely common that the judiciary has review over the constitutionality of legislation. The main variant is that sometimes there's a separate constitutional court.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:02
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Does any other country's Supreme Court even work like ours where it has a veto over the legislature? Yes. The judicative being able to review laws to ensure that they are compatible with the constitution of a country is a rather normal thing. The UK is an outlier as they don't have privileged constitutional law, which has its own downsides.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Canada has a much weaker form of judicial review I'm pretty sure.PT6A posted:In a sense, that's generally the point of a Supreme or Constitutional Court. It exists so that when the legislature tries to do something which contradicts the constitution, there's a body that can say "uh, no, you can't do that, the constitution says so." What makes the SCOTUS unique is that it seems to be forced into (and used specifically in order to) subvert legislative authority where legislative authority cannot be effectively wielded because the entire political situation in the US is pretty broken. Yeah that's probably what makes it seem so out of whack. It's also what I presume is the far more politicized nature of our Court. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Does any other country's Supreme Court even work like ours where it has a veto over the legislature? In a sense, that's generally the point of a Supreme or Constitutional Court. It exists so that when the legislature tries to do something which contradicts the constitution, there's a body that can say "uh, no, you can't do that, the constitution says so." What makes the SCOTUS unique is that it seems to be forced into (and used specifically in order to) subvert legislative authority where legislative authority cannot be effectively wielded because the entire political situation in the US is pretty broken.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
I honestly think the best court reform would be all supreme court cases are decided by a random selection of 11 (or whatever number you want) upper court appellate judges and restrict the justices to some ceremonial role of overseeing the questions. The courts become a lot harder to game, you get a more impartial and diverse view of law, and the supreme court losses it's stranglehold.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:34 |
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Canada has a much weaker form of judicial review I'm pretty sure. I'm not remotely expert on how Canadian constitutional law functions, but some googling and reading indicates their courts are able to review and annul legislation for violation of the constitution. Otherwise the constitution wouldn't act as supreme law.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:16
|
|