|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Well there’s the answer then. Probably would have been better that way, but Northern political commitment to disenfranchising the South long-term was basically nonexistent, and even the people who subscribed to that position were willing to compromise it for political convenience. For example, Charles Sumner, the anti-slavery firebrand who was famously beaten half to death on the floor of the Senate by a pro-slavery senator. During the Civil War, he believed that the Confederate states had irrevocably dissolved themselves, and therefore they would revert to being territories directly under Congress, which could administer them as it pleased or chop them up into an entirely new set of states. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, he was a diehard Reconstruction advocate who cared very strongly about civil rights for African-Americans, and enthusiastically joined in on Johnson's impeachment. In 1872, he joined the anti-Reconstruction Liberal Republicans, who'd teamed up with the Democrats to try to unseat Grant. He believed that the southerners would obey their loyalty oaths and follow the Constitution, and therefore no longer needed to be disenfranchised. In fact, he got himself in political hot water for his strident opposition to any kind of commemoration of Civil War victories, as he thought it would be disrespectful to southerners. He still opposed the Amnesty Act, but only because he believed it should be accompanied with a civil rights act to guarantee that black southerners were just as enfranchised as white southerners.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Executing the Confederate leadership wouldn't have changed much; the problem was that the Confederate population still mostly sympathized with the Confederacy's ideals. The moment Southern voters regained the ability to vote in federal elections, Reconstruction's days were numbered. This and also even the sympathetic white carpetbagger types were racist as gently caress. There was lots of sentiment against giving land to freedmen because it was felt said freedmen wouldn’t appreciate having things just given to them. Plenty of exclusionary sentiment too in the west. Executing the confederate leadership wouldn’t have fixed the problem. The whole system was rotten top to bottom. The best way would have been to dissolve all the confederate states and re-admit them after a period of reconstruction. As it was, it took only a few years for the kkk to regain control and mote with the 3/5ths compromise gone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
I was being flippant for sure and I agree there was no will to do anything to really protect black people in the south after reconstruction, not least of which because most of the north was racist too. The government is rarely going to be more progressive than the vast majority of the population. The one thing I’d have like to have seen (and this may have come from Sumner I can’t remember) would’ve been to basically force merge states that seceded 2:1. I think there might’ve been the will to do that in the immediate aftermath of the war. Or maybe not at all, but it would’ve crippled southern political power pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:39
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:This and also even the sympathetic white carpetbagger types were racist as gently caress. There was lots of sentiment against giving land to freedmen because it was felt said freedmen wouldn’t appreciate having things just given to them. Additionally, a lot of people in the Freedmen's Bureau got the idea that they could at least pay the costs of Reconstruction if not profit from revived cotton cultivation on the old plantations, whereas left to their own devices the former slaves quite reasonably wanted to essentially convert to smallholding agriculture raising primarily food crops, both for practical reasons and also as cotton was so symbolic of their former bondage. This was of course seen by white officialdom as a sign that they were too stupid to manage their own affairs and needed to be pushed into signing labor contracts with their former owners more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
The south should have just been allowed to break off and continue to be a failed state until eventually becoming a puppet vassal of some similar lovely empire like Nazi Germany. I know this would have been a terrible idea because their terrible economy meant they would have been trying to invade the north in an attempt to force slavery back on them as well. I am sure various Gilded Age rich tycoons would have backed them for it, just like now! jeeves fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The south should have just been allowed to break off and continue to be a failed state until eventually becoming a puppet vassal of some similar lovely empire like Nazi Germany. You were showing a remarkable lack of care for the slaves in the South. The only bit of care you show in that whole post is how you personally or your descendants might have been impacted by the North being invaded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Andrew Johnson becoming President in the wake of the Civil War is one of those massively underrated moments of US history Benjamin Butler (who later commanded troops as a Union General in the war) was asked to be Lincoln’s running mate in 1864 but he declined. Compared to Johnson he was far, far more committed to the Union and would not have spent his time as President undermining federal Reconstruction efforts
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The south should have just been allowed to break off and continue to be a failed state until eventually becoming a puppet vassal of some similar lovely empire like Nazi Germany. They'd have built a colonial empire in Central and South America and the Caribbean first. Or tried to, anyway. There was already a plan before the Civil War to do this after secession, which they thought inevitable. In that goofy-rear end pompous way that the KKK later adopted, they called themselves the Knights of the Golden Circle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The south should have just been allowed to break off and continue to be a failed state until eventually becoming a puppet vassal of some similar lovely empire like Nazi Germany. Allowing states to secede would have been the end of the US as a coherent entity. It would have basically destroyed the power of the federal government, because any state that didn't like a particular law or policy could threaten to secede over it at any time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Allowing states to secede would have been the end of the US as a coherent entity. It would have basically destroyed the power of the federal government, because any state that didn't like a particular law or policy could threaten to secede over it at any time. gently caress 'em?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
I understand my point was ridiculous, both from the slaves in the South aspect and also the cohesion of the Union as well. It's just absolutely insane how the South was able to basically play the long con of apathy from the North, and the entire world is still living with the fallout from that due to the surprise rise to world power the country gained in the 20th century that I am sure no one living during the Civil War could have even imagined. I always wonder how much of that comes right down to Lincoln's assassination. As weary as Lincoln seemed from the war, the Johnson administration was one of the biggest clown shows in office until Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Benjamin Butler (who later commanded troops as a Union General in the war) was asked to be Lincoln’s running mate in 1864 but he declined. Compared to Johnson he was far, far more committed to the Union and would not have spent his time as President undermining federal Reconstruction efforts Butler also was an early abolitionist among the first Union commanders to actively work to liberate slaves, under the concept of them being "contraband of war." Later on, when he was in Congress after the war, he corresponded with Susan B. Anthony and supported the suffragist cause generally. Less admirably but hilariously, before the war he got the nickname "Spoons" for allegedly pocketing the silverware from a dinner he got invited to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
The southern elite may indeed be God’s chosen people the way they keep failing into incredible wealth - first with tobacco, then with cotton, and just as importantly, with oil after the war. Each of these also incredibly conducive to concentration of the extracted wealth at the very top. Were it not for oil money, the spirit of Dixie might have died out. With it though…
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/public-officials-can-be-held-liable-for-blocking-critics-on-social-media/quote:The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when they have the power to speak on behalf of the state and are actually exercising that power. The future is stupid and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Javid posted:https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/public-officials-can-be-held-liable-for-blocking-critics-on-social-media/ "Keep personal poo poo off your professional page and vice versa" now official policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
The headline is misleading, but I guess "Public officials can't be held liable for blocking critics on social media unless they loudly shout "I AM THE STATE!" when they do it" wouldn't get as many clicks.
Rogue AI Goddess fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
Rogue AI Goddess posted:The headline is misleading, but I guess "Public officials can't be held liable for blocking critics on social media unless they loudly shout "I AM THE STATE!" when they do it" wouldn't get as many clicks. From my reading the new test isn't like the bribery one where you have to prove something like this during the act but it's more the overall appearance of the account. For example the @realDonaldTrump account clearly would've met this test and he can't be blocking critics on it. However my friend who is a city councilor but only mentions it on his personal account's bio with a link to his professional account can block whoever he wants on his personal account as it clearly is delineated. Basically: Lemniscate Blue posted:"Keep personal poo poo off your professional page and vice versa" now official policy. Actually seems like the real reading of the new test. At least if you want to retain the ability to block people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Yeah, my reading is that a personal page that links to the professional page and maybe posts the occasional news story about themself can block people as it's not government action. It's when the person solicits feedback, makes announcements etc from their page that it becomes governmental and therefore no blocks. It's KISS: keep it separate stupid And that's honestly a good rule
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Yeah, my reading is that a personal page that links to the professional page and maybe posts the occasional news story about themself can block people as it's not government action. It's when the person solicits feedback, makes announcements etc from their page that it becomes governmental and therefore no blocks. It's KISS: keep it separate stupid Agreed. I'd have said "yeah, it's the general professional maxim of separation of church/state" but that's not really an apt metaphor anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Separation of business and personal, I suppose. Your private profile stops being that when you regularly communicate with the public in your capacity as a state official through it. I bet a lot of social media teams are getting a bunch of overtime this weekend bringing their bosses' digital affairs into compliance with this ruling, and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
Shocked to find out gambling is going on in this establishment https://x.com/kevintmorris/status/1769914685678088372?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
Can someone ELI5 the mental gymnastics of this court? Didn't they just pause this a day ago? https://x.com/ElieNYC/status/1770155917515886822?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
SC: States cannot just selectively apply the constitution! They don't get to decide how their laws are applied when it references something like the 14th amendment! They can't overrule the federal government! C'mon, that would lead to chaos! Also the SC: States can absolutely selectively apply the constitution when it comes to immigration and border security. They do get to decide how their laws fit vs the constituional right of the government to police it's borders.They absolutely can overrule the federal government!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Can someone ELI5 the mental gymnastics of this court? This is blatantly unconstitutional and should be overturned, but the conservative justices who don't want to effectively abolish the federal government are willing to ally with the ones who do to get some brown people get harassed for a few months while the appeals process finishes up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Once again I am begging for a POTUS, who isn't some right wing fascist, to tell the SCOTUS to gently caress off and to bring people like Abbott to heel instead of kicking the can down the road until we're a theocracy run by Talibangelicals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Can someone ELI5 the mental gymnastics of this court? The majority's reasoning (or at least ACB and Kavanaugh's reasoning, since the rest of the majority didn't explain their reasoning) is extremely straightforward. Basically, regardless of whether the 5th Circuit's stay on the injunction makes any sense or not, it's an extremely temporary administrative stay that should be replaced by a longer-term ruling shortly, so ACB thinks it's a little early to bother the Supreme Court with something that should be mooted any day now. She advises the lawyers to come back in a week or two when the 5th Circuit has made their actual decision on the stay, and says that if the 5th Circuit drags their feet on that then the lawyers should come back anyway because this stay being very short-term is the sole reason she's punting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Once again I am begging for a POTUS, who isn't some right wing fascist, to tell the SCOTUS to gently caress off and to bring people like Abbott to heel instead of kicking the can down the road until we're a theocracy run by Talibangelicals. Just wait until the president is given total immunity
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
Biden wouldn't use it to do the funniest thing(s) though
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Once again I am begging for a POTUS, who isn't some right wing fascist, to tell the SCOTUS to gently caress off and to bring people like Abbott to heel instead of kicking the can down the road until we're a theocracy run by Talibangelicals. Look into your heart, what do you think will happen? Imagine back in during the Bush admin and think wow what’s the worst that could happen? I feel like the bar is so low now that I literally have no idea how much worse it can get now. And that’s me trying to be a realist and not a pessimist. Edit - I still remember that day in early 2016 when Scalia croaked and I seriously thought we’d have a 5/4 liberal majority for the next twenty years. Laffffff
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
A perfect wet fart end to the Obama administration
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The majority's reasoning (or at least ACB and Kavanaugh's reasoning, since the rest of the majority didn't explain their reasoning) is extremely straightforward. Generally, an "administrative stay" is only done for a few days when immediate damage could happen, in order to give enough time for a proper decision for a "stay pending appeal" to be decided. An administrative appeal needs no judgement with regards to likelihood of success, while a stay pending appeal needs to show that the appealer “has made a strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.” As there are some 150 years of extremely clear case law about the matter at hand, that is unlikely. To avoid this, the 5th Circuit panel of judges decided to abuse the administrative stay in order to buy time (something they‘ve recently started doing more often) - and the Supreme Court via ACB has now officially endorsed this abusive tactic. Vox News posted:… DTurtle fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:As this article on Vox explains, what ACB and the other Republican Supreme Court justices did in conjunction with the Republican 5th Circuit did is somewhat worse. You appear to have misinterpreted the article you linked to. In fact, did you even read the actual Supreme Court ruling at all? ACB didn't endorse that tactic. Just the opposite, in fact: her opinion explicitly and directly calls out the exact thing you're complaining about, and gives the Fifth Circuit a rather direct warning to stop loving around with administrative stays like this. From the very article you quoted: quote:But Barrett also says in her opinion that “an administrative stay should last no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal,” and that a court must apply the more stringent test that applies to stays pending appeal once this brief period has elapsed. She also indicated that, if the Fifth Circuit does not determine if a stay pending appeal is warranted soon, the case “may return to this Court.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Once again I am begging for a POTUS, who isn't some right wing fascist, to tell the SCOTUS to gently caress off and to bring people like Abbott to heel instead of kicking the can down the road until we're a theocracy run by Talibangelicals. You just want a little tyranny
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You appear to have misinterpreted the article you linked to. In fact, did you even read the actual Supreme Court ruling at all? ACB didn't endorse that tactic. Just the opposite, in fact: her opinion explicitly and directly calls out the exact thing you're complaining about, and gives the Fifth Circuit a rather direct warning to stop loving around with administrative stays like this. quote:Editor’s Note, March 19, 2024, 7:30pm: An initial read of Barrett’s opinion was that it was likely to inspire gamesmanship by judges seeking to avoid Supreme Court review. On Tuesday evening, however, the Fifth Circuit issued a new order which suggests this will not be the case. This piece has been updated to account for these developments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
The thing I don't like about ACB and Kavanaugh's opinion is that (combined with Sotomayor's footnote) they effectively said to the 5th circuit, "we will let you get away with this tactic for up to a month, every time." And they absolutely will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
It's blocked again https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1770283782479687818 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1770286174667411588
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:26
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The article was updated with the part you quoted: Sure, but the part that's referencing was right there in ACB's opinion: quote:The real problem—and the one lurking in this case—is the risk that a court will avoid Nken for too long. An administrative stay should last no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal. Once the court is equipped to rule, its obligation to apply the Nken factors is triggered—a point that some judges have pressed their Circuits to consider. The United States suggests that, on several occasions, the Fifth Circuit has allowed administrative stays to linger for so long that they function like stays pending appeal. Overall, that's a pretty clear message for the Fifth Circuit, and it's not surprising that they reacted promptly to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
Jesus III posted:You just want a little tyranny Yes wanting people to stop bending over backwards for fascists and actually punish them when they abuse their authority is tyranny, thank you for your deep take. Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but the part that's referencing was right there in ACB's opinion: The SCOTUS conservatives may be many (mostly bad) things, but "stop creating busywork for us you assholes" is not a surprising stance for someone to take and it'll be interesting to see if the 5th keeps doing this and if so, if/when the SCOTUS will finally have to give a ruling that administrative stays in X or Y situation are to be treated as stays pending appeal from now on. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes wanting people to stop bending over backwards for fascists and actually punish them when they abuse their authority is tyranny, thank you for your deep take. It's ok for POTUS to ignore SCOTUS when you don't like what SCOTUS says. Gotcha. You sound like a FREEPer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
With the SCOTUS agreeing to take up the abortion pill case I wonder how much of it is Roberts screaming at the conservatives to rule mostly/entirely in favor of the FDA unless they want to ensure Dem turnout jumps in November like it did when they issued the Dobbs ruling. Because ruling in favor of the fundie doctor group bringing this lawsuit rips away any remaining weak argument of "we totally aren't trying to outlaw abortion nationwide" the GOP has tried to make. Granted, the fact they're even agreeing to hear the case in the first place and not immediately throwing it out for lack of standing just underscores how nakedly political the SCOTUS majority is at this point. Even the initial ruling from the GOP's go-to rubberstamp judge in Texas had to be pulled back a bit by the appeals court because it was too overboard even for fellow 5th circuit right wingers. Jesus III posted:It's ok for POTUS to ignore SCOTUS when you don't like what SCOTUS says. Gotcha. You sound like a FREEPer. Not to waste more time on a threadshitter like you but you should at least pretend to read a reply before throwing out some half-assed response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:35
|
|