Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
Democratic majorities mean nothing in the face of a radical court hellbent on dragging us backwards on every major front. No law passed by democrats is safe from this court, constitutionality be damned.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Conservatives have been manufacturing cases for decades to get them in front of SCOTUS so they can upend precedent. VRA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it wasn't a random ruling.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Conservatives have been manufacturing cases for decades to get them in front of SCOTUS so they can upend precedent. VRA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it wasn't a random ruling.
This in and of itself isn't an issue and everyone does it. The absolute batshit stuff SCOTUS does with those cases though..
The Supreme Court routinely overrides the ability of Congress to make and pass laws that will benefit people in meaningful ways. It's not even that fucking new of a thing for them. It's an entirely undemocratic institution and is built entirely to retain a status quo of 18th c. america.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Conservatives have been manufacturing cases for decades to get them in front of SCOTUS so they can upend precedent. VRA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it wasn't a random ruling.
Oh obviously. I just said it was an obvious example because it's a law that Congress re-upped by overwhelming majorities literally 7 years before the Court decided it was outdated and not necessary anymore. It's just a blatant example of them making shit up as a way to assert themselves as superior to Congress rather then co-equal to it.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Thanks for the permission
+10
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Conservatives have been manufacturing cases for decades to get them in front of SCOTUS so they can upend precedent. VRA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it wasn't a random ruling.
Oh obviously. I just said it was an obvious example because it's a law that Congress re-upped by overwhelming majorities literally 7 years before the Court decided it was outdated and not necessary anymore. It's just a blatant example of them making shit up as a way to assert themselves as superior to Congress rather then co-equal to it.
The rulings themselves are Calvinball, no arguments here. Alito is communing with the ghosts of Salem to channel their opinions on rulings for a country that didn't exist for another 100 years after they died.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
The group of people you're referring to are not worth listening to in those contexts, is the thing. Their perspectives and opinions should be wholly ignored. It's not actually hypocrisy to not give the time of day to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Nah dude, this is you not even reading what people are actually writing. Maybe instead of randomly picking a post to vomit your thoughtless screed at you could actually engage with the argument at hand.
Again, let's look at the VRA. In 2006, by huge majority in the House (390-33 I believe) and unanimously in the Senate (98-0), Congress reauthorizes the VRA. This is a very clear signal of Congressional intention. In 2013, a mere 6-7 years later, SCOTUS strikes down part of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, stating that it was not responsive to current needs. Even though Congress had literally just said it was.
The current SCOTUS majority does not care what Congress does. It will just find an excuse for why it's not constitutional, even if that excuse is blatantly laughable. That's why they are functioning as a super-legislature that exists above Congress. Whatever the other branches do functionally doesn't matter because the SCOTUS can just invent a reason for why it's "unconstitutional" and rewrite those actions as it sees fit.
The branches cannot be co-equal if one of them can just overrule the other two on a whim.
shryke on
+27
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Oh hey look, it's the difference of opinion fallacy. Despite what nearly a century of wrong-headed propaganda has taught all of us, not every opinion is of equal merit.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
That's what they fucking want
No, that's what the people who don't understand the ramifications of secession want, as it turns out the states of a retrograde South no longer able to depend on the largesse of blue donor states would see their economy crumble. No, the elites want to use the court to force their preferences on the rest of us.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
I am gonna go out on a limb as say that no less than 80% of the adult population utilizes some form of contraception regularly. We are on the verge of learning just how many conservatives are willing to sacrifice their own comfort to secure their victory in the culture war.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
I am gonna go out on a limb as say that no less than 80% of the adult population utilizes some form of contraception regularly. We are on the verge of learning just how many conservatives are willing to sacrifice their own comfort to secure their victory in the culture war.
(looks at the book Dying of Whiteness, about how conservatives support policies that are literally killing them)
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Hey genius if abortion was legalized on the federal level the SCOTUS would've just killed that law today too
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Hey genius if abortion was legalized on the federal level the SCOTUS would've just killed that law today too
That wouldn't happen.
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
But SCOTUS wasn't an unelected super legislature in 1973? That's only when you disagree with their rulings?
There have been 50 years and many democrat majorities to write laws, the institution of the Supreme Court is fine, blame your legislators if you're unhappy with the state of legislature because anything the court gives it can take away.
The striking down of the VRA is an obvious example of what I'm talking about here. This SCOTUS is absolutely about overstepping it's bounds and making random rulings based on no precedent and will absolutely, as in the above example, not let the legislature get in the way of enforcing it's own vision of what the law should be. You could pass a law codifying the right to an abortion and this SCOTUS would just find a reason why it wouldn't be "constitutional" and strike it down. It is frankly not my problem if you are not familiar enough with the history of the supreme court to understand the ways in which they have been overstepping their bounds.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
The group of people you're referring to are not worth listening to in those contexts, is the thing. Their perspectives and opinions should be wholly ignored. It's not actually hypocrisy to not give the time of day to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
No no no, you see because Nazi scumbags might disagree with us, @Lanlaorn is totes right that it is WE who can't see past our biases...
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
But not Loving V Virginia, of course!
wouldn't even put it past him at this point
he's a very reliable soldier
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
I am gonna go out on a limb as say that no less than 80% of the adult population utilizes some form of contraception regularly. We are on the verge of learning just how many conservatives are willing to sacrifice their own comfort to secure their victory in the culture war.
(looks at the book Dying of Whiteness, about how conservatives support policies that are literally killing them)
...I have bad news for you.
I have a friend (that I don't speak with much anymore) that told me if birth control pills are made illegal then he and his wife will just use condoms. I said, "You'll never let the government take away your AR but you'll gladly let them dictate what you do in your own bedroom?"
He didn't have an answer to that then, but he'll need one soon enough.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
That's what they fucking want
No, that's what the people who don't understand the ramifications of secession want, as it turns out the states of a retrograde South no longer able to depend on the largesse of blue donor states would see their economy crumble. No, the elites want to use the court to force their preferences on the rest of us.
I have mixed feelings on the thought of America splitting. And I’ll note that I’m Canadian, so you know, not my country, and I don’t have any great emotional attachment to America.
But to me it comes down to whether it’s better in the long term for America and the world if it splits up or stays together. I recognize that in the short term at least, it’s better for a lot of people in places like Texas and Florida and Alabama if they remain part of the US, and leaving the US would cause the pain and suffering they’re already experiencing to increase exponentially. On the other hand, right now there’s a modern nation with decent values on the whole that’s shackled to a corpse, and it looks like the corpse is dragging it down. Once it drowns not only will those people in Red areas suffer just as badly as they would after a split, but so will people in the Blue areas.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
But not Loving V Virginia, of course!
He doesn't like repeating himself. He already said that Loving was decided wrong in his Obergefell opinion.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
But not Loving V Virginia, of course!
He doesn't like repeating himself. He already said that Loving was decided wrong in his Obergefell opinion.
Yeah, fundamentally the problem is the SCOTUS is just an unelected super-legislature that can do whatever the fuck they want if the people making up the court want to run it that way. And conservatives have spent the last 40 years or so making sure everyone that they put on that court wants to run it that way.
Its an important point you raise. This (not just Roe but complete unchallengeable control of the law) has been the endgame that they have spent 4 decades working towards.
It's not that it's not unchallengeable. It's that no one in power either wants to or has the guts to be the lightning rod that says "Fucking make me" with all these bullshit proclamations.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Hail Hydra
+5
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Jon Swaine of the Washington Post: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in landmark cases on the rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
But not Loving V Virginia, of course!
He doesn't like repeating himself. He already said that Loving was decided wrong in his Obergefell opinion.
The funny part is that most of what he cites as precedence is himself. Calling upon the strict history of "I said so, fuck you."
It's not that it's not unchallengeable. It's that no one in power either wants to or has the guts to be the lightning rod that says "Fucking make me" with all these bullshit proclamations.
But that has been part of the project. It is not just about putting fascists in charge, it has also been about building up the reputation and feeling of powerfulness of the Court as a concept at the same time as debasing it as an actual institution.
Already I'm hearing the chants of "vote vote vote" when I've been voting voting voting for 6-7 years now and nothing ever changes. Why am I being made to feel like this is a failing of me and my peers when it's clearly a system setup to make us all miserable. This is punching down so hard on poor folks, minorities, anyone who lives in bumblefuck nowhere USA who can't afford to move to a more liberal city to get the medical attention they need
This shit is so infuriating I feel like a ping pong ball just be slammed back and forth and somehow we're supposed to do something about this
Like rent is skyrocketing, people are still getting paid under ten dollars an hour all over, and now they're gonna force you to have a kid? For having the audacity to find some small joy in your life? Man I hate this from top to bottom
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes. Inasmuch that there are concurring opinions from Thomas and Roberts, even with Roberts siding with the liberals when voting.
There's also the official dissent opinion, something that was missing before.
But Alito's main opinion is pretty much what was leaked. Just now it has all of the citations and table pounding.
Conservatives have been manufacturing cases for decades to get them in front of SCOTUS so they can upend precedent. VRA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it wasn't a random ruling.
This in and of itself isn't an issue and everyone does it. The absolute batshit stuff SCOTUS does with those cases though..
Oh obviously. I just said it was an obvious example because it's a law that Congress re-upped by overwhelming majorities literally 7 years before the Court decided it was outdated and not necessary anymore. It's just a blatant example of them making shit up as a way to assert themselves as superior to Congress rather then co-equal to it.
Ask a different group of people and they were "overstepping their bounds" with Roe vs. Wade in the first place or gay marriage or whatever else.
Frankly it's not my problem if you can't see past your own biases but I thought I'd at least try for some introspection. By all means, carry on with the torches and pitchforks.
Kyle is a producer at MSNBC.
They're just getting started.
Steam | XBL
Thanks for the permission
The rulings themselves are Calvinball, no arguments here. Alito is communing with the ghosts of Salem to channel their opinions on rulings for a country that didn't exist for another 100 years after they died.
go fuck off a cliff and eat a boot you asshole
The group of people you're referring to are not worth listening to in those contexts, is the thing. Their perspectives and opinions should be wholly ignored. It's not actually hypocrisy to not give the time of day to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Nah dude, this is you not even reading what people are actually writing. Maybe instead of randomly picking a post to vomit your thoughtless screed at you could actually engage with the argument at hand.
Again, let's look at the VRA. In 2006, by huge majority in the House (390-33 I believe) and unanimously in the Senate (98-0), Congress reauthorizes the VRA. This is a very clear signal of Congressional intention. In 2013, a mere 6-7 years later, SCOTUS strikes down part of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, stating that it was not responsive to current needs. Even though Congress had literally just said it was.
The current SCOTUS majority does not care what Congress does. It will just find an excuse for why it's not constitutional, even if that excuse is blatantly laughable. That's why they are functioning as a super-legislature that exists above Congress. Whatever the other branches do functionally doesn't matter because the SCOTUS can just invent a reason for why it's "unconstitutional" and rewrite those actions as it sees fit.
The branches cannot be co-equal if one of them can just overrule the other two on a whim.
That would lead to secession. There will be some states that have no interest in being a union with any regions that prohibit contraception.
Oh hey look, it's the difference of opinion fallacy. Despite what nearly a century of wrong-headed propaganda has taught all of us, not every opinion is of equal merit.
That's what they fucking want
Side with the hard right while pretending he's not sweeping aside precedent and he won't go further (until next time, when he will go further).
The same thing he always does.
Fun fact: twice I typed fuhrer instead of further.
No, that's what the people who don't understand the ramifications of secession want, as it turns out the states of a retrograde South no longer able to depend on the largesse of blue donor states would see their economy crumble. No, the elites want to use the court to force their preferences on the rest of us.
I am gonna go out on a limb as say that no less than 80% of the adult population utilizes some form of contraception regularly. We are on the verge of learning just how many conservatives are willing to sacrifice their own comfort to secure their victory in the culture war.
(looks at the book Dying of Whiteness, about how conservatives support policies that are literally killing them)
...I have bad news for you.
They should have quoted him. What he actually said is even worse.
Hey genius if abortion was legalized on the federal level the SCOTUS would've just killed that law today too
If Roberts had still been the "swing" vote he would have more politely ended the right to abortion.
But not Loving V Virginia, of course!
That wouldn't happen.
No no no, you see because Nazi scumbags might disagree with us, @Lanlaorn is totes right that it is WE who can't see past our biases...
he's a very reliable soldier
I have a friend (that I don't speak with much anymore) that told me if birth control pills are made illegal then he and his wife will just use condoms. I said, "You'll never let the government take away your AR but you'll gladly let them dictate what you do in your own bedroom?"
He didn't have an answer to that then, but he'll need one soon enough.
Yea he wrote a concurrence that says exactly that in almost the at exact language
I have mixed feelings on the thought of America splitting. And I’ll note that I’m Canadian, so you know, not my country, and I don’t have any great emotional attachment to America.
But to me it comes down to whether it’s better in the long term for America and the world if it splits up or stays together. I recognize that in the short term at least, it’s better for a lot of people in places like Texas and Florida and Alabama if they remain part of the US, and leaving the US would cause the pain and suffering they’re already experiencing to increase exponentially. On the other hand, right now there’s a modern nation with decent values on the whole that’s shackled to a corpse, and it looks like the corpse is dragging it down. Once it drowns not only will those people in Red areas suffer just as badly as they would after a split, but so will people in the Blue areas.
He doesn't like repeating himself. He already said that Loving was decided wrong in his Obergefell opinion.
I should have guessed.
Its an important point you raise. This (not just Roe but complete unchallengeable control of the law) has been the endgame that they have spent 4 decades working towards.
This has been a multi-generational project.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Incredibly normal stuff here. Obviously this is the correct measure to take when you're acting in the interest of the people.
The funny part is that most of what he cites as precedence is himself. Calling upon the strict history of "I said so, fuck you."
But that has been part of the project. It is not just about putting fascists in charge, it has also been about building up the reputation and feeling of powerfulness of the Court as a concept at the same time as debasing it as an actual institution.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
This shit is so infuriating I feel like a ping pong ball just be slammed back and forth and somehow we're supposed to do something about this
Like rent is skyrocketing, people are still getting paid under ten dollars an hour all over, and now they're gonna force you to have a kid? For having the audacity to find some small joy in your life? Man I hate this from top to bottom