Roe v. Wade is going down

[Zombie]

Do you have an example of different rulings that used incompatible logic? I agree they are partisan, but that doesn't mean they don't take the law and interpretation seriously.

I don't know if you'd consider this incompatible logic exactly, but in the recent second amendment case the majority opinion was justified in part by historical precedent. Of course they cherry picked the hell out of what was "historical enough" and what wasn't to fit their agenda. But that historical analysis was nowhere to be found when they ruled on public funds being used for religious schools.

I'm sure they take the law seriously. But you're kidding yourself if you think that seriousness extends very far beyond how to use their interpretation of the law to reach decisions that suit their politics.

 

[Gameface]

 

[One Brow]

I don't know if you'd consider this incompatible logic exactly, but in the recent second amendment case the majority opinion was justified in part by historical precedent. Of course they cherry picked the hell out of what was "historical enough" and what wasn't to fit their agenda. But that historical analysis was nowhere to be found when they ruled on public funds being used for religious schools.

I'm sure they take the law seriously. But you're kidding yourself if you think that seriousness extends very far beyond how to use their interpretation of the law to reach decisions that suit their politics.

That's an interesting example, and I don't know all the details. I do know that the difference between public and religious schools was much blurrier 100 years ago than it is today, and the government was much more overt in favoring religious organizations. Would historical precedent logic have changed the outcome?

 

[Zombie]

That's an interesting example, and I don't know all the details. I do know that the difference between public and religious schools was much blurrier 100 years ago than it is today, and the government was much more overt in favoring religious organizations. Would historical precedent logic have changed the outcome?

That entirely depends on what historical precedence the majority decided to consider. If they considered only jurisprudence and societal norms from before 1940, probably not. If they considered precedence established since then, probably so.

But I think they understood that making an argument that drew from a society's view of religion's (read christianity's) role in government that is very different from that of today's probably wouldn't be very persuasive, so they ignored it. And that's my entire point really, these people aren't stupid. They'll find whatever argument they need that best suits their purpose.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Wow


View: https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1540518947094728705?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA

 

[Deleted member 365]

I don't know if you'd consider this incompatible logic exactly, but in the recent second amendment case the majority opinion was justified in part by historical precedent. Of course they cherry picked the hell out of what was "historical enough" and what wasn't to fit their agenda. But that historical analysis was nowhere to be found when they ruled on public funds being used for religious schools.

I'm sure they take the law seriously. But you're kidding yourself if you think that seriousness extends very far beyond how to use their interpretation of the law to reach decisions that suit their politics.

A great example of how unserious they’re taking things was Alito’s reasoning yesterday regarding NY’s gun regulation:



View: https://twitter.com/taulbye324/status/1539990138595545090?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA

View: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1539981783546167297?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA


All that’s missing from this piece is the standard issue:

“Guns are merely tools, like hammers and cars.”

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

“Thoughts and prayers.”

Like cmon, at this point he and Clarence are In a competition for who can troll us the hardest. What’s the point of enacting any laws if people still violate them?

Of course, several of the justices told us this would happen. They Told us that they held cultural grievances and would use their positions to strike back at those they hated. Remember this?


View: https://youtu.be/NO-GKt70I7Q

I understand the passions of the moment. But I would say to those senators: Your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family? To send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me, and against my friends, to blow me up and take me down. You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwinds. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn’t work.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Opening Statement: Full Transcript (Published 2018)

Judge Kavanaugh said in his opening statement, “I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son.”

www.nytimes.com

Essentially we have an extremist wing of the Republican Party in charge of the SCOTUS saying, “You ****ed around now you’re about to find out.”

 

[Zombie]

A great example of how unserious they’re taking things was Alito’s reasoning yesterday regarding NY’s gun regulation:



View: https://twitter.com/taulbye324/status/1539990138595545090?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA

View: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1539981783546167297?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA


All that’s missing from this piece is the standard issue:

“Guns are merely tools, like hammers and cars.”

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

“Thoughts and prayers.”

Like cmon, at this point he and Clarence are In a competition for who can troll us the hardest. What’s the point of enacting any laws if people still violate them?

Of course, several of the justices told us this would happen. They Told us that they held cultural grievances and would use their positions to strike back at those they hated. Remember this?


View: https://youtu.be/NO-GKt70I7Q

I said in a previous post that these people arent stupid, but this is a pretty dumb argument by Alito. The mere existence of a law not preventing a particular crime from being committed isnt a good argument for that law not existing. Otherwise we might as well give up on having laws altogether.

I'm sure Alito knows this though, and is just getting his jabs in while he can.

 

[Deleted member 365]

What’s increasingly worrisome to me is that the GOP has become completely detached from reality. Like they’re not even caring anymore about repercussions electorally. Jan 6, voting rights, telling us that they’re going to gut social safety nets, and all these court cases. These should play out awful electorally. A normal political party would be hitting the brakes right now.

But they’re not normal. They’re authoritarian and no longer play the game of democracy. They’re acting like a fascist party that can do whatever they want and voters don’t matter. I don’t know if it’s because they sense they have enough power through gerrymandering, the courts, the electoral college, senate, and Fox News/Facebook now to override the system and maintain power no matter what the majority wants or because they believe the population is so dumb that they’ll forget about this come fall. Either way, we’re dealing with a party that has zero fear for the majority of Americans but fear far more their own base. That’s a problem because they and their base are increasingly out of step with the majority of Americans both politically and culturally.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I said in a previous post that these people arent stupid, but this is a pretty dumb argument by Alito. The mere existence of a law not preventing a particular crime from being committed isnt a good argument for that law not existing. Otherwise we might as well give up on having laws altogether.

I'm sure Alito knows this though, and is just getting his jabs in while he can.

This certainly doesn’t bode well for those who think the court will respect the settled law of contraception, gay marriage, even school desegregation. At this point, these guys can do whatever they want and troll us. TBH, I don’t know if Democrats have enough voters to make it matter. As long as Republicans hold enough states to prevent a filibuster breaking Senate, they can successfully obstruct any legislation. Gerrymandering already helps them remain competitive in the House. And we all know about the EC.

So I’m actually going to be interested if there are enough voters in places that matter. Lee is up for re-election in Utah. If he goes down will Becky Edwards (repub) or even Mcmullin support Democrats in anything constructive? How many of these can Democrats hold? How many can they capture? I’m not seeing a very promising map.

2022 Senate Election Interactive Map - 270toWin

Who will control the Senate? Review and predict the outcome of the 35 Senate races in the 2022 elections.

www.270towin.com

And if Repubs retake Congress after everything we’ve seen since Jan 6, what’s going to be their takeaway?

 

[Zombie]

What’s increasingly worrisome to me is that the GOP has become completely detached from reality. Like they’re not even caring anymore about repercussions electorally. Jan 6, voting rights, telling us that they’re going to gut social safety nets, and all these court cases. These should play out awful electorally. A normal political party would be hitting the brakes right now.

But they’re not normal. They’re authoritarian and no longer play the game of democracy. They’re acting like a fascist party that can do whatever they want and voters don’t matter. I don’t know if it’s because they sense they have enough power through gerrymandering, the courts, the electoral college, senate, and Fox News/Facebook now to override the system and maintain power no matter what the majority wants or because they believe the population is so dumb that they’ll forget about this come fall. Either way, we’re dealing with a party that has zero fear for the majority of Americans but fear far more their own base. That’s a problem because they and their base are increasingly out of step with the majority of Americans both politically and culturally.

I'm not at all optimistic about the poltical differences in this country being resolved through democratic means, or even through non-violent protests/civil disobedience.

One party in this country has opted for the strategy of might makes right, while the other has been more interested in fundraising off of every crisis than exercising any power to combat them.

Against a backdrop of increasing economic insecurity and fears about our planet's climate getting out of control, things are going to get really ****ing ugly. If you take the power away from people to shape their futures through civil processes they'll turn to other alternatives. It's going to be another long, hot summer.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I'm not at all optimistic about the poltical differences in this country being resolved through democratic means, or even through non-violent protests/civil disobedience.

One party in this country has opted for the strategy of might makes right, while the other has been more interested in fundraising off of every crisis than exercising any power to combat them.

Against a backdrop of increasing economic insecurity and fears about our planet's climate getting out of control, things are going to get really ****ing ugly. If you take the power away from people to shape their futures through civil processes they'll turn to other alternatives. It's going to be another long, hot summer.

Yes. And a worse winter if Repubs retake Congress.

Pro life!


View: https://twitter.com/bnnbreaking/status/1540500594107985920?s=21&t=lDPskhAFgR7DaG8TI-3PXA


And he promises to make our lives miserable.


View: https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1540518947094728705?s=21&t=4ndtZ55i-2d3QuK8ZWzg6Q

 

[Deleted member 365]

She might be alarmist. But the damage is already being done to these families to have to think about this.


View: https://twitter.com/maddowblog/status/1540541002200633346?s=21&t=4ndtZ55i-2d3QuK8ZWzg6Q