SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:

From reading a bit on it, the cross itself was not in the first place built with public funds and nor was it built on public land. Said land became public in 1961. It was named as a historic monument in 2015 and has been from inception a war memorial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Cross

In all honesty, given that the cross was itself built as a war memorial and it's history its seems to me the SC's decision is resonable and fairly specific to this circumstance. TBH I'm kinda bemused someone objected

There was a whole Opening Arguments podcast episode on this, including a long interview with the attorney arguing the case.
Iirc the main actionable point was that the cross costs a fair amount of money in upkeep now that it�s on public lands, to the tune of $100K either since it became public, or for a recent renovation.

The second point of course is a ginormous Christian cross plonked down on an intersection.

I remember agreeing with the attorney in principle, but kinda shrugging at the whole thing, with the funds aspect being the main actionable part to me; coming from Europe, yeah, a cross is pretty much universally the recognized symbol for a soldier�s grave, especially with respect to The Great War. Some absurdly high proportion of combatants were Christians, and the war was mainly fought in Europe by any measure.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2019 10:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 17:44

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Mikl posted:

Because the legislature is gerrymandered to hell, which allows a party which hasn't had even a plurality (let alone a majority) of voters on its side for literally years enact minority rule when they "win" the elections, and block any and all effort from the ruling party when they lose.

My impression of living in the US tells me that an eviction moratorium may not even be broadly popular; a majority of the electorate won�t like it, either because they �own� or they rent and are up to date with their payments - so gently caress other people getting something for free.
Or because if they are not up to date themselves, they�d rather get evicted than somebody they perceive as �undeserving� receiving relief as well.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2021 20:58

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Ladies and gentlemen, behold RBG�s true legacy.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 12:10

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

All because she was too selfish and stubborn to retire as an 80 year old woman who'd (barely) survived multiple bouts of cancer. At least Breyer's making indications he might retire before the midterms, though that still means a replacement has to get past the dual stupidity of Manchin and Sinema who'll cry about anyone too progressive.

On our timeline? Either he isn�t retiring - or, for maximum laughs, he�ll retire, and Manchin dies of COVID before the senate can vote, galvanizing Republican voters for 2024 with the new open slot, and allowing Trump or DeSantis 2024 to fill it with an ultra-chud.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 14:43

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Jethro posted:

If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that?

I�m feeling like folks get too hung up too far downstream, when it should be a basic question of jurisprudence. The correct answer should be along the lines of: �Did you fuckers not pay attention? Abortion is a right; any law that�s passed that tries to restrict that right in a way that can�t be justified relative to other rights and interests is unconstitutional and gets struck�
Philosophically, a law that�s passed in the full knowledge that it�s not constitutional is fundamentally null and void, regardless of implementation.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 15:01

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

vyelkin posted:

It's not a joke, I honestly expect Texans to start suing internet companies for allowing other Texans to access information about abortion. For example, you could sue Google Maps for allowing someone to get directions from their house to the nearest out-of-state abortion clinic. Probably also textbook companies, medical publishers, and anyone who promotes sex education other than abstinence and marital sex for procreation.

Medium-term solution: move ops out of the state. What�s TX going to do?

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 16:57

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Feldegast42 posted:

The same people who wrote the TX law are gonna have it passed in all states the GOP control (so a vast majority of states) by the end of 2022 at the absolute latest, its a national problem

I�m not disagreeing. I�m just saying that as Facebook or Google, just move operations out of state. It�s a civil lawsuit, what are chud states going to do?

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 17:43

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think Republican states even care if they chase away businesses anymore

Big business governors like Doug Ducey or Rick Perry who are Chamber of Commerce simps that could be threatened into vetoing bathroom bills or mandating gardasil etc are on their way out. Every time one of them retires they're replaced with some nutjob like Abbott or Kemp who does not care. We had Georgia Republicans threatenimg Delta's subsidies last year who thought we'd ever see that.

They've found a way to rile up vast swathes of nonvoters with advertising and grievance and insanity, if anything they're warming up to the thought that if they drive out all the high-tech businesses and the educated workers with them, they'll benefit politically and become even more powerful. They're fine with burning down their own economy if they can rule over the ashes.

Agreed. Thinking about it, I feel like that�s actually a much more solid political strategy than even gerrymandering or disenfranchisement (though these may be necessary temporary precursors): use the power you have to turn your states into conservative theocratic hell-scapes. Once a sufficient amount of liberals moves out or is discouraged from moving in, you�ve created a more persistent imbalance than through any other means. You also get to keep the senate, and by extension, the Supreme Court that enables all of this.
Pity about Texas though.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 18:55

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Dead Reckoning posted:

You don't get to accuse your opponents of playing legal calvinball and ignoring the law, then say that the courts should preempt any law that impacts abortion in ways you don't like irrespective of whether there is a property pleaded and postured case before them.

I�d argue the opposite: if you pass a state law in a sphere that has been decided at the federal level, that law bears a burden of proof of constitutionality, and should be regarded as suspect instead of pretending it needs to be reviewed de novo.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2021 20:43

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they�re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session.

We�ll be lucky to get out of this without fetal personhood.

Minimum prediction under this SCOTUS:
0. Best case: a federal right to abortion is gone. Worst case: fetal personhood
1. Every right not explicitly enumerated in the constitution will be left up to states
2. Because Religion is enumerated explicitly, it will trump any �weaker� considerations at federal and state level.
3. Chevron deference will go away, effectively curtailing the power of the federal government, and forcing Congress to legislate if they want anything done. Which ain�t gonna happen

Get used to it.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 15:03

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Devor posted:

The court does not want to plant a flag that says "Roe is overturned", so it's going to continue to be exactly what you see here: Democratic institutions pointing out that Roe is effectively dead, while right-wingers say it's not dead yet, and that they have more work to do.

I think you�d have been right in a 5-4 court with Roberts in the �middle�. With the current 6-3 setup, I expect fetal personhood.

The abortion debate will shift to one about contraceptives, and a large chunk of the faith-based arguments against abortion will be recycled into arguments against contraception. That�ll keep the GOP base riled up and voting to �protect the preborn babies�

# ¿ Oct 12, 2021 19:57

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

My prediction is they're going to declare that the E.P.A. as a whole is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Nah. But Chevron deference is gone, which basically will amount to a judicial power grab as judges get to decide which type and extent of regulation is constitutional(ly delegated) - unless Congress begins passing laws and updating them regularly, like in every other normal country.

Which ain�t gonna happen, so judicial power grab it is

# ¿ Oct 30, 2021 00:06

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

Or, and hear me out, the Executive just loving ignores any such ruling because they (in theory) don't want the country to collapse or for the judiciary to further elevate itself above all others.

Quite frankly, I�d prefer if Congress approached something resembling a functioning legislative. At that point, they can deal with the judiciary, and the policies implemented by the executive just might stop swinging wildly every 4-8 years.

But that wish is about as realistic as yours about the judiciary being ignored, so�

# ¿ Oct 30, 2021 03:08

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Stickman posted:

A functional congress would require supermajorities of both states and politicians to vote against their perceived self-interest, so that's significantly less likely than a president and their cronies deciding to ignore the courts (more broadly than they already have). It probably won't be a Democratic president pushing the boundary, though.

It doesn�t though? It just requires doing away with rules that prevent a simple majority from legislating. Again, like every other normal country on this planet.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2021 15:09

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Piell posted:

Worst case, very unlikely but not entirely impossible is a fetal personhood ruling that makes all abortions illegal. (Alito and Thomas want this)

This, except Barrett as a ultra-fundamentalist catholic should also be counted in this group.

IMO, it�s really down to Gorsuch to save us from fetal personhood

# ¿ Dec 1, 2021 20:25

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

azflyboy posted:

Of course, if the court does completely overturn Roe, I'm sure it provides ammunition to the crazies wanting to outlaw birth control, but that may be a step too far for even this court.

Not necessarily outlaw, just push it back to state level. While I can see them outlawing abortion by discovering fetal personhood in the constitution, I can�t come up with even a theoretical path to outlawing birth control

# ¿ Dec 1, 2021 21:40

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Groovelord Neato posted:

Also sucks Marshall got sick when he did. I know he was unhappy that Bush would be nominating his successor so I'm sure he would've clung to his seat if he could've. That has to be the most lopsided replacement in a bad way the court's ever had.

You mean, more lopsided than replacing RBG with an unqualified religious extremist nutjob?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2021 16:26

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Crows Turn Off posted:

Let's see if Biden actually gets to seat someone.

Can�t wait for Sinema to vote no for no reason at all.

Or for Manchin to vote no because of lack of bipartisan support for the nominee.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2022 18:16

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Father Wendigo posted:

https://twitter.com/truthout/status/1493707944180940803?t=n4AiPqrsE3jsxD5n4cRq6A&s=19

Meh. I think there�s enough to get worked up over that�s not a hypothetical scenario

# ¿ Feb 16, 2022 15:18

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

None. If a woman needs an abortion 8.5 months in then that�s her call and nobody else�s unless you believe it�s acceptable to enslave a woman because she got pregnant.

That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: �it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it�s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child�.

The cutoffs are arbitrary.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 20:09

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Dameius posted:

If only there was something different between a child and a fetus that we could use to make that distinction.

What�s the difference between an 8.5 month old fetus and a baby that�s been born at 34 weeks, other than location?

# ¿ Oct 11, 2022 20:25

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

haveblue posted:

Exactly. If you need a medical intervention at 8.5 months, it�s either one of these things:

-the fetus has severe defects and is either already dead or will be soon

-the mother has developed a severe complication and staying pregnant would put both of them at risk (and in this case it�s an early birth rather than abortion, they try to save the fetus and will almost certainly succeed at 8.5 months)

That probably covers literally every pregnancy that ended at 8.5 months for the last decade or more. You can imagine some kind of insane scenario involving coercion and restraint to put someone in a situation where they didn�t want to be pregnant but weren�t able to do anything about it until that point, but now you�re in the same rhetorical boat as Scalia saying 24 justifies torture

Yet that�s not what we�re talking about. The argument was that a woman should have an absolute right to decide what to do with her body throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. Lest she be enslaved.

EDIT:
That includes weeks 36 through 40. It includes presumably requesting an abortion in lieu of giving birth when contractions have started.

It�s not hard to see why all developed societies I�m aware of have decided that enslavement of the mother is the lesser evil.

morothar fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Oct 12, 2022

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 12:36

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Ravenfood posted:

Oh that one is easy. They are misogynist societies, OP. Ones who didn't reevaluate their ethics as medicine and society changed.

Why do you think they did?

Or maybe it�s that rights aren�t absolute, and personhood isn�t measured by location.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 13:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 17:44

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

HashtagGirlboss posted:

An individual vote is the most meaningless thing in the world. They only matter in the aggregate, and it�s the responsibility of the candidate to build the support that can win on that measure. Even the closest election a single vote is meaningless, because was it that third party vote, or was it that person who got in a car wreck on the way to the polls and didn�t vote, or any other of countless individual reasons a voter didn�t vote for a candidate. No voter is on the hook. It�s entirely the responsibility of the political apparatus. That�s their job

In my life I have voted for Nader/kerry/Obamax2/clinton/spoiled ballot

In no case did my vote matter

It�s the responsibility of the candidate to entice voters to vote for them. It�s the responsibility of people to be voters.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 14:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?