As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Supreme Court is Planning to Overturn Roe v Wade

1323335373841

Posts

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    2018 begs to differ. I'm thinking this plays out much the way that the ACA repeal shit does at the start and then really blows up on the GOP. We're not at the stage yet, where the public at large realizes how this is going to fuck them over. Once that kicks in, the GOP isn't going to be be able to do damage control. Worse for them, is that it not only is this going to be done by unelected officials, but when they start going after some of the other stuff, they won't even really be able to rely much on "well that isn't my problem!" Going to be a shit ton of young and middle aged folk that were resentful of having to pay for insurance they didn't believe they needed, that aren't going to fucking like the idea that it's illegal for them to buy a condom, so that they aren't saddled with an unwanted child they can't support.

    If it was an even playing field (no gerrymandering, suppression, etc), the deck wasn't stacked (Senate being unrepresentative) the media weren't feckless (if not actively in the tank), and the general populace weren't apathetic if not outright disgusted with "both sides" (partly media's fault, partly overexpectations), and didn't have the memory of a goldfish, then the Republican party would be wiped out electorally.

    That's not the world we live in, and even with abortion rights as an issue, I wouldn't take a coinflip on this year, or 2024. Gas prices and inflation are at the least going to match it for the priority in the upcoming election. All the other stuff is going to have negligible impact, so it's going to come down to those three issues.

    I wish I had more faith in the general electorate, that it's not even a question. But I don't, so it is.

    There are two interpretations of 2018.

    One is that the people were so angry at the Republicans that they rose up en masse and voted them out of power, because the people were paying attention and realized how shitty the Republicans were.

    The other is that the people were so angry at the party in power that they rose up en masse and voted that party - who happened to be Republicans - out of power because the people know fuck all except that when they're not happy, it's time to push out whoever is in charge.

    If it's the former, that's promising. It means that maybe this will drive people to the polls in a way that helps. I would really like to believe it's the former.

    I would really fucking like to believe it's the former.

    Trump is better at motivating Democrats to vote than the Democratic Party.

    Captain InertiaCommander ZoomSorcehanzo
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    I believe the reason people are mad at Nancy P is because she's out there campaigning for an anti-choice candidate. It's a huge own goal. Also what are you all talking about, it doesn't get much more elite than the hundred millionaire Speaker of the House from San Francisco??

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Help me Marie Kondo my life and buy my old stuff
    MagellPolaritieElvenshaeDouglasDangerSleepTetraNitroCubaneBloodsheedBullheadDarkPrimusThegreatcowZonugalMan in the MistsButtersShadowfireSolarMatevOghulkCidTheSquidAlexandierhanzostopgapHacksawAegeriDee Kae
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Hachface wrote: »
    I think the big problem, and it's a problem with every midterm, is that about 20% of the electorate is just really stupid, and thinks there is a lever the president can just pull in Washington to fix everything. When you look at Biden's approval ratings they tracked pretty well with this victory margin up until September 2021, then they dropped 20%. That was when he lost that 20%. The catalyst was probably Afghanistan and the continuation of the Covid economy, but neither were particularly things that were traceable to Biden's presidency. It would have made more sense for there to be a slow decline in approval over the last year or so (when you have started to see some really legitimate and rational cracks in the Biden admin) but it wasn't, it was a sudden flip.

    Why? Because 20% or so of the electorate essentially thinks there is just a "MAKE EVERYTHING AWESOME" button in Washington DC that the president gets to push, and September was about when they realized Biden wasn't going to push the button. More seriously, there's a significant portion of the electorate (and people in general) with a very simplistic view of how the world works, and they think "leadership" is some kind of thing like in Crusader Kings where if you put a guy in with 20 points in administration your income just jumps by 50% or whatever. The question isn't "Is this guy doing the best he can do in the situation?" but "are things completely fixed since he's been in office?". It's evaluating things in absolute terms rather than terms relative to the situation at hand when the guy was put in charge. You see this in other settings a lot, I remember working for a company that had a branch that was underperforming, and would replace the manager like every 6 months or so. The rationale was always like "Sales are up but they aren't at targets by our metrics" or whatever, and the end result was that nothing ever improved because no one ever had a real chance to implement any kind of actual plan, so the location just continued on at a baseline level of shittiness through manager after manager. And the same thing is true of the electorate, you saw it in Obama too. People expect instant results, and it turns out you can't solve all the worlds problems in a year or two, and "they didn't get it done so throw the bums out" just means you eliminate most of the chance of ever getting results at all.

    Please name the bums who have been thrown out.

    Literally every same-party congress in the first midterm election of a newly elected president since at least 1994? Edit: except 2002 but that was very much a special circumstances situation.

    Jealous Deva on
    Calicaaltlat55durandal4532Elvenshaespool32QuidHakkekageFencingsaxCommunistCowAegeri
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    l
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    I believe the reason people are mad at Nancy P is because she's out there campaigning for an anti-choice candidate. It's a huge own goal. Also what are you all talking about, it doesn't get much more elite than the hundred millionaire Speaker of the House from San Francisco??

    The scare quotes were a response to the idea of elites as a policy-position monolith and not to anyone's elite bonafides.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    I believe the reason people are mad at Nancy P is because she's out there campaigning for an anti-choice candidate. It's a huge own goal. Also what are you all talking about, it doesn't get much more elite than the hundred millionaire Speaker of the House from San Francisco??

    Yeah, he sucks and the party shouldn’t back the guy. But the House is still the one half of the legislature that was able to pass the bill that would protect Roe.

    CelestialBadgershrykealtlat55Stabbity Styledurandal4532ElvenshaefortisFencingsaxCommander ZoomMartini_PhilosopherEinzelAegeriMunkus Beaver
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    What are your concrete methods of influencing the system you describe, then? Because your posts sound like you've given up.

    CelestialBadgerLeeksAntinumericEinzel
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    Your explanation of policies changing due to control of congress and the courts is that all the elites changed their minds. Coincidentally at the same time as the consequences of elections take effect, but not actually caused by those elections.

    But what you think is a fantasy is the idea that democratic leadership would pass a popular bill if they could.

    Leeksdurandal4532MonwynFencingsaxKamar
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    WTF are you even talking about? I'm talking about things that literally happened. Here's the actual news talking about it:
    The bill passing the House with only Cueller voting against: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-abortion-rights-amid-challenges-roe-v-wade-n1280003
    The bill failing in the Senate with almost all Dems voting for it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-rejects-democratic-bill-codify-abortion-rights-rcna17968

    I suggest next time instead of the condescension you, like, google the issue and find out.

    jmcdonaldLeeksElvenshaespool32No-QuarterelectricitylikesmeKruiteQuidFiatilMillhlprmnkyHakkekageFencingsaxCommander ZoomKamarMartini_PhilosopherQanamilEinzelAegeriMazzyxHavelock2.0SkeithNyysjan
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    Mmm, delicious smarmalade

    You know it’s kind of a goose move when somebody is giving you facts to back up their argument and you respond by telling them they’re living in a fantasy land

    jmcdonaldLeeksElvenshaeCalicaNo-QuarterQuidFiatilFencingsaxKamarQanamilEinzelAegeriHavelock2.0
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    I believe the reason people are mad at Nancy P is because she's out there campaigning for an anti-choice candidate. It's a huge own goal. Also what are you all talking about, it doesn't get much more elite than the hundred millionaire Speaker of the House from San Francisco??

    She's campaigning and backing an anti-choice candidate, she continues to push the philosophy that progress without bipartisanship is extremism, her responses to the Roe v. Wade leaks were a step away from the Willie Wonka "No. Don't. Stop." meme.

    DoodmannmrpakuMagellBloodsheedSleepAridholMan in the MistsWhelkOghulkCidTheSquidtynicFallout2manHacksawAegeri
  • altlat55altlat55 Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    I think the big problem, and it's a problem with every midterm, is that about 20% of the electorate is just really stupid, and thinks there is a lever the president can just pull in Washington to fix everything. When you look at Biden's approval ratings they tracked pretty well with this victory margin up until September 2021, then they dropped 20%. That was when he lost that 20%. The catalyst was probably Afghanistan and the continuation of the Covid economy, but neither were particularly things that were traceable to Biden's presidency. It would have made more sense for there to be a slow decline in approval over the last year or so (when you have started to see some really legitimate and rational cracks in the Biden admin) but it wasn't, it was a sudden flip.

    Why? Because 20% or so of the electorate essentially thinks there is just a "MAKE EVERYTHING AWESOME" button in Washington DC that the president gets to push, and September was about when they realized Biden wasn't going to push the button. More seriously, there's a significant portion of the electorate (and people in general) with a very simplistic view of how the world works, and they think "leadership" is some kind of thing like in Crusader Kings where if you put a guy in with 20 points in administration your income just jumps by 50% or whatever. The question isn't "Is this guy doing the best he can do in the situation?" but "are things completely fixed since he's been in office?". It's evaluating things in absolute terms rather than terms relative to the situation at hand when the guy was put in charge. You see this in other settings a lot, I remember working for a company that had a branch that was underperforming, and would replace the manager like every 6 months or so. The rationale was always like "Sales are up but they aren't at targets by our metrics" or whatever, and the end result was that nothing ever improved because no one ever had a real chance to implement any kind of actual plan, so the location just continued on at a baseline level of shittiness through manager after manager. And the same thing is true of the electorate, you saw it in Obama too. People expect instant results, and it turns out you can't solve all the worlds problems in a year or two, and "they didn't get it done so throw the bums out" just means you eliminate most of the chance of ever getting results at all.

    Please name the bums who have been thrown out.

    I could name 63 democratic house members from just the 2010 midterms.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Southpaw posted a good write up on the intellectual dishonesty of Alito's legal reasoning:

    https://www.nycsouthpaw.com/p/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-alito

    I think several of our in-house lawyers have already touched on most of it here, but it seemed worth sharing.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    TarantioshrykeThegreatcowdurandal4532ElvenshaeMorganVMan in the MistsNo-Quarterspool32MillHakkekageFencingsaxCommander ZoomMrMonroeMartini_PhilosopherFallout2manCommunistCowAegeriMunkus BeaverHavelock2.0Raiju
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    What are your concrete methods of influencing the system you describe, then? Because your posts sound like you've given up.

    In my honest opinion you have four choices to influence the world we live in to be more like the world you would like to see.


    Inside the system:

    1.) Become an elite by making money or controling formal power.
    2.) Marry a partner who is elite and influence them over time.
    3.) Become a trusted servant of an established elite and influence them to your worldview over time.

    Outside the System:

    1.) Establish a counter elite over time and work over time to replace the existing elite.


  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Heck of a theory that a SCOTUS ruling and a week, without a meaningful campaign season, are sufficient to nail down where the entire "elite class" stands and that Nancy Pelosi of all people is the name we really need to nail to this stupid thing, the one person whose body might actually pass a fucking bill.

    Not might. Literally actually did. Like 8 months ago or something.

    For all the whinging the actual truth is that if it was up to Dem leadership, Roe v Wade would be codified as federal law already. It would have fucking sailed through. The hold up is basically Senators. Senators from deep red or purple states and/or dumbass Senators who want to hang on to stupid Senate traditions.

    It is a pleasant fantasy. I can understand why you choice to believe what you believe. We all have our ways of coping.

    Just know that if you dont understand the truth of the system then you will not be able to influence it. I wish you the best of luck.

    WTF are you even talking about? I'm talking about things that literally happened. Here's the actual news talking about it:
    The bill passing the House with only Cueller voting against: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-abortion-rights-amid-challenges-roe-v-wade-n1280003
    The bill failing in the Senate with almost all Dems voting for it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-rejects-democratic-bill-codify-abortion-rights-rcna17968

    I suggest next time instead of the condescension you, like, google the issue and find out.

    We just disagree about the nature of politics that is all. I have no reason to fight with you and will stop posting and leave you to your means and methods.

    Manning'sEquation on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    As intimidating as it is to have lawyers posting here on the regular. I'm pretty glad we have 'em.

    If Roe is overturned, will it be within the powers of local (or federal) officials to call up the national guard to 'protect' officials and crush protests? To protect protesters?

    Would Biden be expected to use the guard in some way?

    I don't necessarily expect it in states who are attempting to enact abortion protection legislation but in Mississippi, Missouri, Texas... who knows.

    dispatch.o on
    Heffling
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Tumin on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    dispatch.o on
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Registered User regular
    So there seems to be an arms war among the neighbors dealing with the protestors.

    Kavanaugh's neighbors helped arrange the protest outside his house.

    Alito's neighbors brought wine, cheese, and key lime pie to the one outside his.

    https://jezebel.com/justice-alitos-neighbors-give-wine-and-cheese-to-report-1848905062

    Elvenshaedispatch.oCalicajungleroomxiTunesIsEvilPolaritieStabbity StyleMan in the MistsLeekskimeNo-QuarterMorganVspool32AimMonwynjmcdonaldQuidjoshofalltradesTetraNitroCubaneMarathonhlprmnkyWhiteZinfandelMillForarBullheadShadowfireshrykeFencingsaxButtersCommander ZoomtyrannusExtreaminatusLord_AsmodeusKayne Red RobeMatevJohnny ChopsockyNobodyKamarIlpalaXandarOghulkCidTheSquidDrovektynicelectricitylikesmeLokarnAlexandierMartini_PhilosopherCommunistCowFallout2manSorceMarekQanamilhanzoRingoCorp.ShephardEinzelCelestialBadgerasofyeunNecoEmperorSethHacksawAegeriMazzyxMunkus BeaverBigPointyTeethMvrckDoctorArchHavelock2.0SkeithRaijuNobeard
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Protests in the Justice's neighborhoods is pretty new, and I am loving it.

    ElvenshaeTetraNitroCubanejungleroomxKruiteLeeksBullheadWhelkshrykeButtersCommander ZoomLord_AsmodeusGnizmoKayne Red RobeCalicaJohnny ChopsockyNobodyKamarCidTheSquidelectricitylikesmeMartini_PhilosopherFallout2manCommunistCowSorceCorp.ShephardEinzelCelestialBadgerasofyeunAegeriMazzyxMunkus BeaverBigPointyTeethDoctorArchHavelock2.0RaijuNobeard
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    It's not just that the protests are in the Justices' neighborhoods.

    It's that the protests are their neighborhoods. Warms the heart, really.

    VuIBhrs.png
    jmcdonaldspool32ElvenshaeTuminQuidAtomikaKruiteMorganVAimLeeksBullheadShadowfireWhelkPolaritiejoshofalltradesTarantioshrykeFencingsaxCommander ZoomArbitraryDescriptorLord_AsmodeusGnizmoCalicaMatevNobodyKamarCaptain InertiaXandarOghulkCidTheSquidzagdrobtynicelectricitylikesmeLokarnAlexandierMartini_PhilosopherFallout2manCommunistCowSorceQanamilRingoMan in the MistsCorp.ShephardEinzelCelestialBadgerasofyeunNecoHacksawAegeriMazzyxMunkus BeaverBigPointyTeethMvrckDoctorArchHavelock2.0SkeithRaijuNobeard
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    So I've seen a report (don't have the tweet right now, but it had the text of the bill in it) that the Louisiana bill that flat out says the state courts can't review the law ALSO has in it that officers of the state should ignore any Federal ruling that seeks to overturn or limit the law in any way. So that's two ways that it is just flat out unconstitutional, because last I heard states don't get to ignore the Federal government.

    I mean you'd think we knew the answer to whether the states get to ignore the federal government but hey that decision is only 170ish years old and it was a different time back then.

    /sarcasm

    ElvenshaeKruite
  • BogartBogart Turn Around, Bright Eyes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Your personal theory of how the world works isn’t really the topic. The topic is in the thread title.

    QuidjungleroomxTynnanAegeriMunkus BeaverHavelock2.0
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    It's not just that the protests are in the Justices' neighborhoods.

    It's that the protests are their neighborhoods. Warms the heart, really.

    I can't think of a city more hostile to Republicans short of, like, Berkeley.

    Elvenshae
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    FencingsaxshrykeronzoLeeksMorganViTunesIsEvilPolaritiejmcdonaldCommander ZoomBigJoeMTynnanArbitraryDescriptorShadowfirejoshofalltradesAimDoodmanndispatch.oElvenshaeCojo MojoLord_AsmodeusCalicaMatevButtersKamarHefflingMagellBullheadDouglasDangerzagdrobelectricitylikesmeMartini_PhilosopherCommunistCowFallout2manSorceQanamilRingoMan in the MistsEinzelBarrakkethStarZapperHacksawAegeriQuidMunkus BeaverMvrckDoctorArchjimb213Havelock2.0SkeithRaijuThegreatcowNobeard
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    Well, I'm uncomfortably aware that should those people get Their Guys back in office - which, for various reasons including outright election fuckery, seems likely at this point - that very same federal power will be used to enforce the backwards system, and crush opposition to it.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    dispatch.ospool32DouglasDanger
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    Well, I'm uncomfortably aware that should those people get Their Guys back in office - which, for various reasons including outright election fuckery, seems likely at this point - that very same federal power will be used to enforce the backwards system, and crush opposition to it.

    Republicans don't not use power because the Dems haven't done it first.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    MorganVjungleroomxElvenshaeGnizmoYamiB.MatevMagellCidTheSquidelectricitylikesmeFallout2manMan in the MistsAegeriQuidMunkus Beaver
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    kime wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    Well, I'm uncomfortably aware that should those people get Their Guys back in office - which, for various reasons including outright election fuckery, seems likely at this point - that very same federal power will be used to enforce the backwards system, and crush opposition to it.

    Republicans don't not use power because the Dems haven't done it first.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't while we can.
    I'm saying that I'm looking ahead to when the jackboot is on the other foot, and it's going to be much, much worse, and probably go on for longer because the exercise of power will be aligned with the worst states rather than opposed to them.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    dispatch.o
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    Well, I'm uncomfortably aware that should those people get Their Guys back in office - which, for various reasons including outright election fuckery, seems likely at this point - that very same federal power will be used to enforce the backwards system, and crush opposition to it.

    Republicans don't not use power because the Dems haven't done it first.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't while we can.
    I'm saying that I'm looking ahead to when the jackboot is on the other foot, and it's going to be much, much worse, and probably go on for longer because the exercise of power will be aligned with the worst states rather than opposed to them.

    If the jackboot is going on the other foot they're not going to wait for dems to do it first.

    They've done nothing but push back and engage in jackbooted, immoral garbage for years. Where did we come up with this idea that if Democrats do it first, then and only then will Republicans engage?

    MorganVFencingsaxBloodsheedDoodmannPolaritieMagellFallout2manMan in the MistsRaijuFANTOMAS
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    Well, I'm uncomfortably aware that should those people get Their Guys back in office - which, for various reasons including outright election fuckery, seems likely at this point - that very same federal power will be used to enforce the backwards system, and crush opposition to it.

    Republicans don't not use power because the Dems haven't done it first.

    Yeah, expecting Republicans to be beholden to norms, especially when they get in their way, is simply naive at this point.

    Heck, the one main example used as an escalation point of this "expectation" (Reid removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial appointments and cabinet posts) was because the Republicans shat upon the norms that unless someone is provably unqualified, you fucking approve them.

    You can lodge a protest vote if the confirmation is guaranteed, for whatever reason, but you don't hold up nominations that hinder the Courts or the Administration from doing their job, without good reason.

    Up until McConnell started his bullshit of obstruction, THAT was the norm.

    FencingsaxHakkekageshrykeLord_AsmodeusKamarDacFallout2manMan in the MistsAegeriQuidMunkus BeaverHavelock2.0Raiju
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Democrats must really be kicking themselves for just refusing to appoint SCOTUS judges.

    Oh shit wait.

    spool32AridholCelestialBadgerAegeriHavelock2.0RaijuNobeardNyysjan
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited May 12
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    I guess assuming command of an already deployed force is functionally different than ordering deployment. I knew the 101st was sent. I guess I don't really understand how federal law interacts with states that very squarely want to escalate to deployment of military assets.

    BLM protests seemed to really blur things between law enforcement and military crowd control. Thanks for the explanation.

    I just take it as given protests and crowd control are very much in store.

    dispatch.o on
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    I guess assuming command of an already deployed force is functionally different than ordering deployment. I knew the 101st was sent. I guess I don't really understand how federal law interacts with states that very squarely want to escalate to deployment of military assets.

    BLM protests seemed to really blur things between law enforcement and military crowd control. Thanks for the explanation.

    I just take it as given protests and crowd control are very much in store.

    The Guard have a dual command structure - they're normally under the command of a state's governor, but command can be taken by the federal government, at which point they're considered the same as any other military unit iirc. What they can be used for varies significantly depending on who's in charge as well I believe (specifically there's a bunch of laws limiting the ability of the federal government to use troops domestically that don't apply if the Guard is under state command?)

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    HakkekageRingo
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    It's not just that the protests are in the Justices' neighborhoods.

    It's that the protests are their neighborhoods. Warms the heart, really.

    I can't think of a city more hostile to Republicans short of, like, Berkeley.

    Well, Philly, but that’s just cause Philly is hostile to everyone and everything

    JokermanElvenshaeCommander ZoomMatevShadowfireKayne Red RobeHakkekageEinzelDoctorArchSkeith
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Setting aside...all of it...state governors are in command of the guard and direct their activities, Biden is not really involved in a meaningful way except to make them availabile to a governor.

    Was the guard not deployed by the federal government during the civil rights movement and elimination of school segregation despite the state governors being opposed to it?

    Edit: or more recently when Trump wanted a photo of in front of a church that had protestors? I get that some of that was state police.

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the Guard…he sent in the 101st Airborne and took over the Arkansas National Guard. The governor had initially deployed the national guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock.

    Ike’s stated authority to do this was the Insurrection Act of 1807 and was enforcing not just the law of congress but the supreme court’s order in Brown, which Arkansas had been resisting for years (along with most of the south)

    We should not forget, within living memory, how violent and extreme fully half of the country was willing to go to preserve a backwards system of oppression; and we should recognize that the minority militantly fighting against Roe are the political heirs of the segregationists

    I guess assuming command of an already deployed force is functionally different than ordering deployment. I knew the 101st was sent. I guess I don't really understand how federal law interacts with states that very squarely want to escalate to deployment of military assets.

    BLM protests seemed to really blur things between law enforcement and military crowd control. Thanks for the explanation.

    I just take it as given protests and crowd control are very much in store.

    The Guard have a dual command structure - they're normally under the command of a state's governor, but command can be taken by the federal government, at which point they're considered the same as any other military unit iirc. What they can be used for varies significantly depending on who's in charge as well I believe (specifically there's a bunch of laws limiting the ability of the federal government to use troops domestically that don't apply if the Guard is under state command?)

    Posse comitatus is a thing, and why there had to be a state of insurrection called before the 101st could be deployed.

    Ringo
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited May 14
    Lots of protesting going on.

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Lots of protesting going on.


    This must be a very sexy protest because it's only for mature audiences.

    MorganVCommander ZoomkimeElvenshaeDacBullhead
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.

    When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."

    Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."

    We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

    Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.

    Kaputa on
    TetraNitroCubaneShadowfireBloodsheedMan in the MistsMorganVAegeriCelestialBadgerMartini_PhilosopherPolaritieHachfacetynicjimb213YamiB.BullheadWhelk
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Lots of protesting going on.


    This must be a very sexy protest because it's only for mature audiences.

    Woke always has a mature rating because of the possibility of police violence during the streams.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    CelestialBadgerBlackDragon480Heffling
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.

    When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."

    Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."

    We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

    Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.

    How long were they out there? Did you stay till they dispersed?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sign In or Register to comment.