|
quote:This is in no small part because abortion is legal through a process that was never voted on. "Keep the very firmly in place status quo" just doesn't attract activism the way changing it does, even when the majority agrees with it Nor do they really care whether gay right gains come through elective or judicial means.
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
The GOP has already declared their intention to stall it hardcore, and noone knows if that will work for them or if they will suffer for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
quote:edit: oh wait I read what you wrote wrong, and now I don't know what you're talking about but that's hilarious and Scalia continues to surprise with his treasure chest of crazy tl;dr : he got an important point of fact incredibly wrong when referring to a decision that he himself wrote. quote:"This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]," Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
here's the current basis of Penumbra Theory, asaccordingto WikiJustice William Douglas posted:Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."[ I'm generally sympathetic, but the 9th seems a p slam dunk basis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
penumbras just means 'this is implied but not directly stated' and the 9th amendment says that things don't have to be directly stated to be rights seems pretty straightforward
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
quote:Not legally. It's a nightmare because there's no concrete basis or structure, or respective limit, for deontological norms that have no textual basis. if you're looking for a textual basis for everything in a document that specifically says there's rights with no textual basis i dont know what to tell you
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
The law already went to into effect because shitheads wouldn't uphold a stay on enforcement. So a bunch of clinics closed already, and odds of them coming back seem low.... At least it would put a kibosh on introductions of similar laws in other states.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
@EvilWeasel: confidence in the supreme court has fallen noticably over the last 15 years or so (with no apparent effect of bush v gore). Hard to say why. in any case, IMO being for or against a particular person for their personal qualities is not a big deal; how often does the SCOTUS make rulings based on someone's personal qualities...? the judges are inherently political, it's partisanship we should discourage....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:People don't actually accept the judgement of the court as correct, they just aren't willing to start an insurrection over it. Instead they just lobby for power so that they can appoint people who will then overturn the rulings that they didn't like. If the supreme court was actually viewed as apolitical nominations wouldn't be a huge fight and presidential elections wouldn't be driven, significantly, by the desire to control the makeup of the court. in that sense, we can again blame the republicans or more specifically the rise of the 'conservative legal movement' for fostering and encouraging the picks of explicitly ideological right wing judges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
i think some people having more votes in a congress could lead to some weird political dynamics, especially when those people help determine who it is that gets more votes. ie the congress decides that that guy who disagrees with <leader> on policy suddenly has his votes combined into the leaders seat next election.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
I realize the court wasn't ruling on what qualifies as 'arms length', but a board member asking her BAE to hook her up doesn't count...? who does then? And holy poo poo you folks weren't kidding about the Gorsuch opinions. He reads like a facebook crank.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
Javid posted:People shouldn't, I don't think anyone in the thread disagrees. I just don't care terribly much if two corporations choose to make that deal with each other, since they actually CAN negotiate on equal(ish) footing and understand what they're agreeing to. Plus, as others have mentioned, it actually serves a purpose there, whereas when it's corporation vs. consumer the purpose is "gently caress you". It often fucks over small corporations pretty hard too. Large corporations tend to treat small vendors pretty badly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Asking from ignorance: practically, what does imprisoning US citizens based on their ancestry have to do with banning the travel of non-citizens from certain countries to the US? It's because the way the court has treated the Muslim Ban basically says that its okay to do the Muslim Ban as long as you superficially pretend its not a Muslim Ban - what the bolded section describes as 'facially neutral'. So, if Korematsu had been more facially neutral with sufficient pretense that it was not based on race, this courts logic would have okayed it on national security grounds. it's like when racist grandpa complains about the Urban Ferals and the SCOTUS is over here saying 'it is wholly inapt to liken his complaints to racism!'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
pointing out good things an institution has done does not make you a stan for that institution. it makes you, yknow, fact-based. this whole 'sure i was ignorant and wrong but at least I'm not DEFENDING something' poo poo is just embarrassing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Dianne's like 87 and frail af in a job that theoretically is stressful. It is cruel to say it, but she may not live much longer to stop reform. Yes. People who leave power voluntarily have good odds of being replaced by those who don't. Health care has improved dramatically in last 60 years or so though, so we've had the same people in power for a long time. Boomer-ocracy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:She handed the SC to the fascists for an entire generation out of pure ego, and people are still hero worshipping her. A "campaign" to villainize such a piece of poo poo person is a pretty natural reaction. Dying inconveniently doesn't make someone a piece of poo poo. I mean come on. Some real weird energy to that POV. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:She had cancer multiple times and was over 80 years old. She knowingly chose to leave the future of the country to random chance rather than taking action to do the right thing while she had a chance. Now everyone in the country gets to deal with the fallout of her selfish bullshit, and nobody should be making excuses for it now more than ever. Fascists and power-mongers running the country is not Ginsburg's fault; it's everyone elses. No institution can protect against the outcome of elections in perpetuity, and random chance is always in control; death can happen at any time. I agree that as a matter of political strategy, it would have been better for her to step down in a more favorable climate. However the leap from that to 'What a piece of poo poo!" is just loving absurd. Even if everything Ginsburg stood for gets torn down tomorrow, she still had a hugely positive impact on the lives of a lot of people over the course of her career. Ignoring that is pretty much a highly cynical 'But what have you done for me lately?' enterprise. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:“What have you done for me lately” is a question that should be constantly asked of anyone who holds power in our name. That's fair. But they don't become a piece of poo poo, totally ignoring everything they've accomplished, if the answer is 'not as much as they could.'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Amy Barret stands up in 1864: "Abraham Lincoln is not President, the tyrannical Yankee Government is not letting the South vote!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Political theorycrafting: The Democrats will want a major political backlash to fuel court-packing, as its a politically risky endeavor. I expect with ACB confirmed, the conservative SCOTUS (assuming they dont trash the ACA immediately) will attempt to avoid this by biding its time on culture wars until post-2022. Democrats will try to force the issue by passing the pro-choice bill. I don't think there's much chance of packing the SCOTUS without 51 seats at a minimum though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:How do I explain court packing to progressive friends (the "I wanted to vote for Bernie in the primaries but was too afraid he'd be too far left to be elected president" type) that aren't online like most of us here are? They mentioned in passing that it sounds like a thing dictators do to solidify power. I know the response to that is that the republicans are already doing that and they just did it tonight but that doesn't really lead to a productive discussion. Well it is absolutely the sort of thing dictators do, so, y'know. Appeal to their sense of fairness. You have to lean on that Republicans have corrupted the system by blocking Merrick Garland and hypocritically rushing through ABC. Point out that a majority of Supreme Court justices are now appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Point out the Arizona SC packing. Point out the generally fuckedness of the judiciary from Republican sabotage. Say that its not really something anyone wants to do but unilateral disarmament doesn't work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Jungle primaries make a certain amount of sense in states where one party is politically dominant, giving the general run of voter more power as compared to everything being locked up by the party base long before the election. They are just asinine in even remotely competitive states tho.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
.....The thread takeaway about this leak is 'Those loving democrats!'?? Christ. You know, this is terrible news, is it really necessary for the #1 priority to be figuring out the ways by which its the Democrats fault instead of the people actually doing it?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 08:04
|
|
|
The theocrats already vote anyway. That's how we got in this situation to begin with. The concern that it may shock people out of their complacency is why there is so much faux outrage on the right RN about someone having the temerity to leak the decision. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
The text of the draft makes reference to abortion's 'special moral status' and cites a bunch of court cases talking about like...fetal personhood. It definitely feels like laying the groundwork to enumerate a 'fetal personhood' principle - which would strike down any codified law and be a hair away from illegalization.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
Love that bit in the draft about protecting maternal health. Dipshit. From my understanding a major reason Roe is commonly held to be weakly argued is... RBG, who wanted to make a ruling on abortion rights based on equal protection rather than privacy. It's a frustrating topic since most people saying it's poorly argued just go 'penumbras lol'. Having a chain of logic two-three steps long is not some incomprehensible logic chopping. Implicit right to privacy, implicit right to autonomy, implicit right to abortions.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Even with a completely arbitrary and meaningless standard Alito managed to gently caress up. The smart folk have noted that in those old laws he cites, the anti-abortion laws didn't apply pre 'quickening' (~mid 2nd trimester). Meaning his cites literally contradict the argument!
TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's true, any influence on judges other than the raw text of the law in question taints the result. Why is why our judges are raised from birth alone inside sealed compounds, carefully sequestered away from any information about the world outside a courtroom for their entire lives Remember the time someone left a phone inside a circuit court compound? The whole herd of judges had to be destroyed! Truly a shame.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:For ruining the lives of millions of people and claiming it is good for us. These Justices sure are happy to be miserable pieces of poo poo with each other. Can you imagine having Thomas as a coworker for the rest of your life? A pontificating crank unswervingly convinced of his own rightness, and his wife is somehow worse. At least Kavanaugh has the courtesy to be passed out drunk in the corner.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
roberts: 'how could contributing directly to someones bank account cause corruption? the idea is ludicrous.'
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
The problem, as outlined in the dissent, is that these 'outstanding loans' are an incredibly easy vector for corruption. You spend $1 million of your own funds on your campaign, except you write it up as a 'loan' instead. After the election, someone wants a favor from you and they simply make donations - money is free speech, bitches - which the campaign promptly 'repays' you for. It's a constitutionally protected pipeline straight into your bank account. This was in fact a problem in the past which is why there were restrictions on the practice, but here comes Ted 'loving' Cruz and his backup band the SCOTUS crew taking a stand for corruption.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yep. not just legally, but constitutionally protected!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:What even would the corruption be in Bush v. Gore? "You were appointed by the same party as the person you ruled in favor of, therefore you must be corrupt"? "This court ruling is more specious than normal, so jail time for all of you"? SCOTUS never had a leg to stand on in Bush v Gore. They admitted as much in the decision, that's why it was a 'special one time only no precedents' opinion. It wasn't corruption in the sense of bribery, but it was an abuse of their office and public trust - which is by almost anyone's standards is close enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's some important differences between "gerrymandering" and "straight-up declaring the election invalid and just appointing whoever they want", which is why I like to talk specifics and details rather than vague sweeping statements like this. like it's not an either/or here, they can angle to overthrow elections and use the same momentum to try to rig election law in their favor. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
huzzah! racism's officially been canceled!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Craig K posted:don't be silly it was already cancelled in shelby county v holder
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
i'm sure she was pro-choice, for herself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
the dissenting arizona supreme court justices laid out why its a bad decision. the law in question specifically says that you should be looking at other laws *only* if the law is ambiguous, and the law is not ambiguous. its very clear. the majority pretty much smashed their heads with bats until they were incapable of understanding plain text and used that as justification to outlaw abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. from that article: quote:Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, also dissented from the denial of review in the case of Dillion Compton, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a prison guard. As his case came to the court, it centered on the prosecutors’ use of 13 of their 15 strikes to remove women from the initial jury pool, leaving the jury with four women and eight men. Prosecutors explained that they struck women based on their hesitations about imposing the death penalty. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Sotomayor suggested, used the wrong analysis: It should have conducted a side-by-side analysis of individual female jurors who were struck against male jurors who were allowed to serve, rather than looking at women as a group. prosecutors just removing women from the jury because you can't trust women, they won't kill people
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 22:40
|
|