[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

15354565859

Posts

  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    So then she'll gladly recuse herself from any abortion cases, right?


    Right?

    Her position in the paper implies that, as a lower court judge bound by Roe, she would be required to recuse herself if she ever found herself in the very unusual position of directly ordering an abortion to be performed.

    That's moot, though, not just because that legal position is exceedingly rare, but because on SCOTUS she would not be bound to affirm Roe and could instead substitute her own legal (not religious) judgment of whether Roe was originally correctly decided, which is almost certainly that it was not.

    Which, sure, try to make her answer that question in hearings (she will dodge).

    Fencingsaxrahkeesh2000spool32Netscape
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    So then she'll gladly recuse herself from any abortion cases, right?


    Right?

    Her position in the paper implies that, as a lower court judge bound by Roe, she would be required to recuse herself if she ever found herself in the very unusual position of directly ordering an abortion to be performed.

    That's moot, though, not just because that legal position is exceedingly rare, but because on SCOTUS she would not be bound to affirm Roe and could instead substitute her own legal (not religious) judgment of whether Roe was originally correctly decided, which is almost certainly that it was not.

    Which, sure, try to make her answer that question in hearings (she will dodge).

    Nah in the hearings she will say, "I cannot possibly comment on anything which could possibly influence or inform my judgment in an ongoing case" or possibly "Screw you you meaningless democrat. I only answer questions from Republicans and communists like you can rot in hell"

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Elvenshae
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    If that's the sum total of the support for "Barrett thinks the bible overrules the Constitution", then the accusation is pretty much false. This paper is very clearly saying that judges should not impose their morality on the justice system, and should instead step aside in favor of someone without the same moral conflict.

    Ha! So a judge would need to decide if something qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, but do so without imposing their morality on the justice system? Sounds like Balls and Strikes, but even more blinkered.

    No. A judge would need to decide if imposing the DP was morally acceptable to them at all, and if not (as is the case with orthodox Catholics) they should step aside. Further if the perception might be that a decision was made based on a moral judgment and then justified under the law, the judge should recuse to maintain the integrity of the court.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    @Butters @Xaquin @Chanus

    Jumping over here from the debate thread!

    I don't think repeal of the 2A is on the table, but that's not what I meant when I said that "2A issues" would be a legitimate concern rather than fearmongering. I think it's absolutely the case that Heller and McDonald would be reversed under a packed SCOTUS - a move that can only be understood as a reduction in 2A rights due to the loss of incorporation to the States as well as the federally recognized individual right to bear arms. Returning to the 2A regime of 2007 probably sounds like a dream world to at least some of the people who also support packing the court, but when we're discussing the political ramifications of the attempt, it's unfair to paint concerns about a reduction in 2A rights as "fearmongering". Any fear of a loss of 2A rights would be legitimate and justified.

    Chanus
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Oh, sure, the sweeping rights currently granted under the 2A are definitely under threat, IMO it's more fearmongering because those rights aren't important.

    Like any minor change is played up as the height of dictatorship and the death of all liberty.

    That's the fearmongering.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    electricitylikesme
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Weren't the rights of the 2A as they currently stand created recently because of a SCOTUS decision? We're in an era of widespread gun ownership, but it wasn't always this way.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Oh, sure, the sweeping rights currently granted under the 2A are definitely under threat, IMO it's more fearmongering because those rights aren't important.

    Like any minor change is played up as the height of dictatorship and the death of all liberty.

    That's the fearmongering.

    I don't understand how you can say that removal of the individual right and State incorporation are minor changes.

    I mean, come on here. You can have the position that 2A rights are outdated, counterproductive, or even evil. That reducing them is right and proper, that it should be done quickly, that we should go even farther and dramatically curtail 2A rights.

    But you can't argue that the change is minor or that the argument isn't important. You're diving right down to the core reason we have rights at all, assuming an entire moral philosophy that isn't shared, then resurfacing with "you're afraid of fake things!" clutched in your hand. I don't accept as given the underlying foundation required to engage with that as a serious argument.

    Goumindong
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Weren't the rights of the 2A as they currently stand created recently because of a SCOTUS decision? We're in an era of widespread gun ownership, but it wasn't always this way.

    There has always been relatively extensive firearm ownership in the US, but many jurisdictions had extensive regulations about where you could bring your guns, which guns you could own, and who could own them.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    shrykemrondeauN1tSt4lker
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited October 9
    Weren't the rights of the 2A as they currently stand created recently because of a SCOTUS decision? We're in an era of widespread gun ownership, but it wasn't always this way.

    You could (and I do) argue that the right was always there, and McDonald finally rectified 150 years of failure.

    spool32 on
    Elvenshae
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Butters @Xaquin @Chanus

    Jumping over here from the debate thread!

    I don't think repeal of the 2A is on the table, but that's not what I meant when I said that "2A issues" would be a legitimate concern rather than fearmongering. I think it's absolutely the case that Heller and McDonald would be reversed under a packed SCOTUS - a move that can only be understood as a reduction in 2A rights due to the loss of incorporation to the States as well as the federally recognized individual right to bear arms. Returning to the 2A regime of 2007 probably sounds like a dream world to at least some of the people who also support packing the court, but when we're discussing the political ramifications of the attempt, it's unfair to paint concerns about a reduction in 2A rights as "fearmongering". Any fear of a loss of 2A rights would be legitimate and justified.

    It'd be both. A packed court would very likely narrow the scope of the 2A, which would be of concern for those who care about that sort of thing; but the noise surrounding from the Republicans and the usual suspects would be straight up fearmongering.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    DarkPrimus
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Butters @Xaquin @Chanus

    Jumping over here from the debate thread!

    I don't think repeal of the 2A is on the table, but that's not what I meant when I said that "2A issues" would be a legitimate concern rather than fearmongering. I think it's absolutely the case that Heller and McDonald would be reversed under a packed SCOTUS - a move that can only be understood as a reduction in 2A rights due to the loss of incorporation to the States as well as the federally recognized individual right to bear arms. Returning to the 2A regime of 2007 probably sounds like a dream world to at least some of the people who also support packing the court, but when we're discussing the political ramifications of the attempt, it's unfair to paint concerns about a reduction in 2A rights as "fearmongering". Any fear of a loss of 2A rights would be legitimate and justified.

    Yes, returning to the traditional, centuries old originalist understanding of the Second Amendment by overturning the Activist Legislating from the Bench that occurred in 2008 would be a possibility under an expanded Court.

    shryke
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    edited October 9
    Are 2A rights even a litmus test situation for democratic appointees? I certainly can't remember that being the case. Maybe I'm misremembering but Democratic nominees aren't like the ones from the Federalist Society etc in that there is no list of required opinions beyond abortion rights really.

    Edit: Maybe overturning CU might be close as well I suppose.

    Ardol on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    @Butters @Xaquin @Chanus

    Jumping over here from the debate thread!

    I don't think repeal of the 2A is on the table, but that's not what I meant when I said that "2A issues" would be a legitimate concern rather than fearmongering. I think it's absolutely the case that Heller and McDonald would be reversed under a packed SCOTUS - a move that can only be understood as a reduction in 2A rights due to the loss of incorporation to the States as well as the federally recognized individual right to bear arms. Returning to the 2A regime of 2007 probably sounds like a dream world to at least some of the people who also support packing the court, but when we're discussing the political ramifications of the attempt, it's unfair to paint concerns about a reduction in 2A rights as "fearmongering". Any fear of a loss of 2A rights would be legitimate and justified.

    Yes, returning to the traditional, centuries old originalist understanding of the Second Amendment by overturning the Activist Legislating from the Bench that occurred in 2008 would be a possibility under an expanded Court.

    It's a living document, moniker! Just because some Old White Men said it should be one way doesn't mean we have to suffer under their shortsighted paternalism forever.


    wait hang on I think we switched corners

    ElvenshaeExtreaminatusFleur de AlysDarkPrimusCommander ZoomDisruptedCapitalistMeeqeFencingsaxsanstodo
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Aw man, I've been avoiding this thread like the plague

    A man can only handle so much depression

    I will simply state that I don't think the second amendment will be altered in any way, and think that aside from perhaps stricter licensing, greater fines for illegal sales, and thing like that, stricter gun control is fearmongering and nothing more. for anything more, you'd need a larger bipartisan (HA!) majority and for people like manchin and jones to effectively kill their careers (won't happen).

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 9


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett.html
    In their late teens, young adults who grow up in the movement are able to enter a process called “coming underway,” in which potential members decide whether to join the group permanently. During this time, typically three or four years, they are discouraged from dating and expected to decide on one of two tracks: stay single and celibate or get married.

    Those who are single often live with married couples and families, creating households where everyone shares tasks, like grocery shopping, cooking and caring for children. No one is left to fend for themselves.

    “That closeness is amazing,” Ms. Byrne said, reflecting on her years growing up in the group. “And it was extremely suffocating.”
    Group members are heavily involved in one another’s lives, both spiritually and practically, former members say. “You’d go to the doctor or the car mechanic, you’d go to all People of Praise people,” said Arthur Wang, a doctor in Indiana who joined the group in 1988. “You have a group of instant friends, instant relationships, instant family.” Members often marry each other, and they attend one another’s weddings.

    Men and unmarried women are each assigned to individual counselors, an older member of the same gender, whom they consult about spiritual and practical matters. Some former members say those counselors — male leaders are called “heads” — exerted notably granular influence, attempting to control their dating lives and their household budgets. Married women are “headed” by their husbands.

    The People of Praise declined to confirm Judge Barrett’s membership. But a photocopy of an undated membership directory obtained by The New York Times includes Judge Barrett, her husband, Jesse, and five of their now seven children. Amy Barrett is also listed in the directory as a “handmaid” for one of the group’s geographical divisions in South Bend.
    That sounds like a cult.

    Couscous on
    Elvenshaespool32XaquinTomantaBigJoeMDoodmannArdolshrykeSleepRhesus PositiveMartini_PhilosopherEncAridholzagdrobDoctorArchKetarAlexandierFleur de AlyspainfulPleasanceDarkPrimusCommander ZoomPreacherMillStabbity StyleHappylilElfelectricitylikesmeToxShadowfireApogeeemp123knitdanjdarksunGONG-00BlackDragon480FencingsaxJaysonFourKamarHacksawboogedybooyossarian_livesMvrck
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    Jumping over here from the debate thread!

    I don't think repeal of the 2A is on the table, but that's not what I meant when I said that "2A issues" would be a legitimate concern rather than fearmongering. I think it's absolutely the case that Heller and McDonald would be reversed under a packed SCOTUS - a move that can only be understood as a reduction in 2A rights due to the loss of incorporation to the States as well as the federally recognized individual right to bear arms. Returning to the 2A regime of 2007 probably sounds like a dream world to at least some of the people who also support packing the court, but when we're discussing the political ramifications of the attempt, it's unfair to paint concerns about a reduction in 2A rights as "fearmongering". Any fear of a loss of 2A rights would be legitimate and justified.

    Yes, returning to the traditional, centuries old originalist understanding of the Second Amendment by overturning the Activist Legislating from the Bench that occurred in 2008 would be a possibility under an expanded Court.

    It's a living document, moniker! Just because some Old White Men said it should be one way doesn't mean we have to suffer under their shortsighted paternalism forever.


    wait hang on I think we switched corners

    reinterpret the law when it's bad, adhere to the law when it's good

    ez pz

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    spool32ArdolBrodyHappylilElfFencingsax
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Someone REALLY needs to confirm her cult membership on the record. Was this brought up before in her earlier confirmation hearings?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    If you use the phrases "tight knit faith community" and "small, especially insular religious group" to describe a group you are probably describing a cult.

    spool32Extreaminatus38thDoeSleepRhesus PositivemonikerBigJoeMMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeArdolAridholzagdrobQuidDoctorArchKetartzeentchlingZomroPolaritieFleur de AlysCommander ZoomPreacherBullheadBrodyKraintStabbity StyleToxShadowfireZonugalemp123ragnarok7331jdarksunBlackDragon480FencingsaxJaysonFourKamarHacksawNetscapeRedTideMvrck
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Someone REALLY needs to confirm her cult membership on the record. Was this brought up before in her earlier confirmation hearings?

    Feinstein did and that's the stuff Republicans are furiously trying to turn into an attack on Catholicism.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ChanusmonikershrykeElvenshaeArdolzagdrobBlackDragon480FencingsaxNetscape
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett.html
    In their late teens, young adults who grow up in the movement are able to enter a process called “coming underway,” in which potential members decide whether to join the group permanently. During this time, typically three or four years, they are discouraged from dating and expected to decide on one of two tracks: stay single and celibate or get married.

    Those who are single often live with married couples and families, creating households where everyone shares tasks, like grocery shopping, cooking and caring for children. No one is left to fend for themselves.

    “That closeness is amazing,” Ms. Byrne said, reflecting on her years growing up in the group. “And it was extremely suffocating.”
    Group members are heavily involved in one another’s lives, both spiritually and practically, former members say. “You’d go to the doctor or the car mechanic, you’d go to all People of Praise people,” said Arthur Wang, a doctor in Indiana who joined the group in 1988. “You have a group of instant friends, instant relationships, instant family.” Members often marry each other, and they attend one another’s weddings.

    Men and unmarried women are each assigned to individual counselors, an older member of the same gender, whom they consult about spiritual and practical matters. Some former members say those counselors — male leaders are called “heads” — exerted notably granular influence, attempting to control their dating lives and their household budgets. Married women are “headed” by their husbands.

    The People of Praise declined to confirm Judge Barrett’s membership. But a photocopy of an undated membership directory obtained by The New York Times includes Judge Barrett, her husband, Jesse, and five of their now seven children. Amy Barrett is also listed in the directory as a “handmaid” for one of the group’s geographical divisions in South Bend.
    That sounds like a cult.

    If you did a find/replace People of Praise with Scientology I'd have to squint to see a difference, aside from perhaps the amount of cash required.

    spool32AridholOrcaDarkPrimusPreacherElvenshaeBrodyjdarksunBlackDragon480FencingsaxJaysonFourKamar
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you use the phrases "tight knit faith community" and "small, especially insular religious group" to describe a group you are probably describing a cult.

    I think the specific distinction here would be leadership structure. I think many people reserve the term "cult" for groups that meet those descriptors but have a specific, single leader. So while I would agree that these types of groups count as cults, a lot of people would refrain from that term because the of that leadership distinction. And also the uncomfortable similarity it has with their local church without that distinction....

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you use the phrases "tight knit faith community" and "small, especially insular religious group" to describe a group you are probably describing a cult.

    I think the specific distinction here would be leadership structure. I think many people reserve the term "cult" for groups that meet those descriptors but have a specific, single leader. So while I would agree that these types of groups count as cults, a lot of people would refrain from that term because the of that leadership distinction. And also the uncomfortable similarity it has with their local church without that distinction....

    People really don't like to acknowledge the mainstream cults for what they are.

    OrcaEncN1tSt4lker38thDoeChanusBigJoeMDarkPrimusCommander ZoomzagdrobSleepBrodyStabbity StyleToxGONG-00DoctorArchBlackDragon480JaysonFourNetscapeMvrckButters
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Lets check the boxes:
    • Swearing to stay in the cult upon joining
    • Isolation from anyone outside of the cult
    • Control of who you see and what your behavior is
    • Consolidation of possessions and living situations to prevent escape
    • Relinquising money and control of choice to higher ranking members of the cult
    • Mandatory meeting with a counselor who knows your secrets

    It hits all of the checkboxes. A cult doesn't have to had a single, socially oriented leader, most successful ones don't. Scientology has the writings of a dead leader but operates at the granular level without much executive oversight of most of its membership. Cults of personality are a subset of cults as a whole, not the definition of them.

    IncenjucarPolaritieBigJoeMAioua38thDoeFleur de AlysArdolDarkPrimusCommander ZoomzagdrobSleepKetarElvenshaeBullheadStabbity StyletzeentchlingshrykeelectricitylikesmeShadowfireemp123GONG-00BlackDragon480FencingsaxJaysonFourKamarHacksawNetscapeMvrckButters
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Oh I know that's true, but that's the distinction that many people choose to make when deciding whether to label something a cult or not. Because without that distinction, it hits too close to home for too many of said people.

    IncenjucarSleep
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you use the phrases "tight knit faith community" and "small, especially insular religious group" to describe a group you are probably describing a cult.

    I think the specific distinction here would be leadership structure. I think many people reserve the term "cult" for groups that meet those descriptors but have a specific, single leader. So while I would agree that these types of groups count as cults, a lot of people would refrain from that term because the of that leadership distinction. And also the uncomfortable similarity it has with their local church without that distinction....

    People really don't like to acknowledge the mainstream cults for what they are.

    Eh. The meaning of the word has drifted from antiquity, so it really doesn't apply anymore to mainstream religion (well, mostly - they still have subgroups that can be cultish).

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    shryke
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    edited October 9
    we can debate the semantics of "cult" all day but i'm pretty sure "cryptic subset of religious organization that emphasizes subservience of women to men" fits the description

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    IncenjucarMartini_PhilosopherQanamilPolaritieDarkPrimusCommander ZoomzagdrobArdolElvenshaeOrcaRhesus PositiveStabbity StyleHappylilElfshrykeemp123N1tSt4lkerFencingsaxJaysonFourKamarHacksawNetscapeRedTideButters
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    I have some thoughts I've been wondering about with all of the coverage of ACB and the fallout from nominating her which could lead to court packing (which should happen) and then Republicans going tit for tat until the court loses all legitimacy and how that's a scary thing. I figured this was the best place to ask the question: why should we care? Judicial review and nullification aren't enshrined in the constitution. As far as I can remember from US History like fifteen years ago, judicial review was essentially invented by the Marshall court all the way back and the ability for the courts to enforce that is entirely through the executive branch. The government had to send in the national guard to integrate the schools, which the judiciary can't do. So similarly, if the courts want to strike down Roe and say "no abortions at all forever" and the blue state governors want to say "nah, piss off" and Biden doesn't want to enforce it, then...that's a good thing right?

    Of course, the shoe can always be on the other foot in a few ways. What about when a Republican wins office? What about red states? This kind of gets to my next point. Make people with stakes do unpopular shit. Republicans cannot repeal the ACA, they tried and failed and now they're hoping some people in robes with lifetime tenure who don't have to be held accountable by the people do it for them. This extends to the entirety of their agenda. They can't knee cap abortion rights, they can't repeal many of the regulations like the clean air act, all that stuff. So if they come in and fuck with it, then they have to run for re-election on it. This is similar to my argument for killing the filibuster. Yes, some day Republicans will be in charge again and be able to repeal all of the shit we passed. Let them campaign on that. I'm okay with the terms of the debate being "you need to convince more people." If I lose based on that then I can hope people miss what they lost and win again in two or four years. I'm less okay with totally unaccountable law wizards passing down judgment from on high.

    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    we can debate the semantics of "cult" all day but i'm pretty sure "cryptic subset of religious organization that emphasizes subservience of women to men" fits the description

    America is a cult?!?!

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238
    Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
    Playing: Persona 5 Royal (PS4), Animal Crossing (SW), FF7remake (PS4)
    ChanusOrcaIncenjucarAistanNetscapeStabbity Style
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    As someone who grew up in a real deal cult (Worldwide Church of God), I know a cult when I see one.

    That's a full on cult. Even we didn't pull that level of individual control on the membership. Its not JUST a cult, its a particularly controlling one.

    NetscapeElvenshae
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    we can debate the semantics of "cult" all day but i'm pretty sure "cryptic subset of religious organization that emphasizes subservience of women to men" fits the description

    America is a cult?!?!

    i mean

    incontrovertibly

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    OrcaAistanNetscapeBrodyMartini_Philosopher
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    If I lose based on that then I can hope people miss what they lost and win again in two or four years. I'm less okay with totally unaccountable law wizards passing down judgment from on high.

    While you're not wrong, the problem is, how many people are you willing to let get hurt in the interim.

    That's the fundamental difference between the left and right. The left will try to help everybody (like disaster relief to red states), the right will say "fuck em", particularly to blue states. Hell, Trump is essentially on record in that regard.

    It's hard to compromise when one side is willing to accept no deal as a partial success.

    And it's not like the pain will get distributed equally. I'm a middle aged white hetero male. I'd be fine (other than being a foreigner when I'm there).

    But people of color? Women? LGBT, especially trans? It's hard to say "Yeah, you need to eat it, and hard, worse than now, for the next decade or so, in the hopes, with no guarantees, that people will recognize that Republican philosophy is fucking twisted."

    FencingsaxCommander ZoomAistanElvenshaeZeroCow
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited October 10
    MorganV wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    If I lose based on that then I can hope people miss what they lost and win again in two or four years. I'm less okay with totally unaccountable law wizards passing down judgment from on high.

    While you're not wrong, the problem is, how many people are you willing to let get hurt in the interim.

    That's the fundamental difference between the left and right. The left will try to help everybody (like disaster relief to red states), the right will say "fuck em", particularly to blue states. Hell, Trump is essentially on record in that regard.

    It's hard to compromise when one side is willing to accept no deal as a partial success.

    And it's not like the pain will get distributed equally. I'm a middle aged white hetero male. I'd be fine (other than being a foreigner when I'm there).

    But people of color? Women? LGBT, especially trans? It's hard to say "Yeah, you need to eat it, and hard, worse than now, for the next decade or so, in the hopes, with no guarantees, that people will recognize that Republican philosophy is fucking twisted."

    That assumes that the status quo is insulated from pain though. I think the thing that gives me the most pause is red states. They'll probably continue to be pretty shitty and bad based on current behavior, cutting abortion access with nonsensical regulation, voter disenfranchisement, etc. But again, that's already how it is. At least in the future Democrats could pass an anti-abortion bill and make that a referendum for the people.

    The ideal situation is the court maintains legitimacy and just starts ruling how I want to. Maybe the Democrats pack the court and add PR and DC to the Union and the Republicans say "okay we'll stand down since it's harder for us to hold the Presidency and Senate at the same time" but does anyone believe that? How long does that last? Maybe the court is reasonable for the rest of my life but in another thousand years (I'm being very optimistic with my lifespan) who knows what will happen?

    I think the thing that pushed me over the edge was Mike Lee's tweet about the perils of democracy oddly enough. Fuck that guy. More democracy all the time. I truly believe the country is more left than it's representation. I believe that if we pass universal child care and health care reform and all the shit in the liberal dream, people will love it and value it. We saw it with the ACA. I think the other side believes this too. Voting is bad for them, that's why they keep trying to stop it. That's why they'll pay any price for control of the courts, it's the ultimate anti-democratic, free from accountability tool. Make Republicans actually stake their careers on doing unpopular shit.

    ChaosHat on
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    shrykeMorganVElvenshae
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    mrondeauBlackDragon480Fencingsaxmonikeremp123Martini_Philosopher
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

    The alternative you are talking about means all the state-level laws we see banning abortion, gay marriage, interracial marriage etc just keep on trucking.

    FencingsaxmonikerMorganVNetscapeemp123
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    Commander ZoommonikerNetscapeemp123
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited October 10
    shryke wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah. The entire point of constitutional rights is that you can't just leave this shit up to majority rule.

    The big problem with veto points in the US system are legislative. Judicial review is not really a problem except in that it's been forced to substitute for legislative solutions and is highly partisan. The first is because of the veto points in the legislative process, the second partially because of veto points and even more so because of white supremacy.

    So I agree with this in principle. With a less dysfunctional legislative and executive branch you could fix much of this. Case in point, the pending ACA case. Right now the essential theory of the case boils down to "Republicans killed the mandate, and now that makes the whole bill unconstitutional because reasons." In a normal universe you would just say "fine whatever we'll repass the law with a $1 mandate or what the hell ever and it's fine." So maybe if you abolish the Senate you could get there, but that isn't happening.

    And again, this really ignores the part where SCOTUS has been used to enhance and legitimize all the shitty parts. The window of pretty liberal jurisprudence we're likely to exit seems to be really rare in the history of the court.

    And without it you get basically nothing because state governments just do whatever they want. It's the Jim Crow era.

    No you pass a law, like the Voting Rights Act, which SCOTUS keeps chipping away at.

    ChaosHat on
    Orca
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    The only thing that gives me pause is civil rights, who knows how the south would be now if not for that, but then again SCOTUS also supremely fucked that up before, so it's a wash. Many other countries have courts less powerful, and removing yet another veto point from our government and making the country more democratic (small d intentional) has to be better.

    It gives me more than just pause on this idea. My right to exist is very much a political issue now, and has been since before europeans even colonized this section of the earth. Being able to exist in public with any safety is being very strongly contested as we speak in countless states, and across the country at large. The problem is there are so very few like me that it is hard to build empathy. Far too few people can say they know an openly trans or non-binary person. Not because we are so rare, but because our lives are so endangered by being open. The use of force by the state has very much continued to keep it that way when private citizens haven't done it for them. It was only 4 years ago that I first thought that maybe, just maybe I would get to be a person in the eyes of the law. That did not end exactly as I would have hoped as you can guess.

    What has happened is that law wizards have expanded my rights despite everything. There has been no substantive improvement of the civil rights of the trans and non-binary community since longer than I have been alive so far as I can tell. We have pushed forward through court cases on our own. Political allies though are extremely rare. I have not at all forgotten Obama being elected after opposing marriage equality.

    So we come to the Supreme Court. It is an important check on the tyranny of the majority. The place where it doesn't matter if people think I am icky as long as the law holds that I can be protected. At least in theory. If you take that away then a lot of bad will happen, and not nearly as confined geographically as you seem to imagine. More democratic does not automatically mean better. It just means one less check against the abuses of minorities nationwide.

    The law wizards are fickle and beholden to nobody though. If they were more easily removed I think maybe my objections would change. I think you could also just reduce the court's jurisdiction and maybe get to a happy medium. I'm not sure term limits do what I want, because okay, you're still unaccountable for 18 years. The problem is we have seen is that all of our shit was built on a house of cards. Obama's executive orders removed (notably DACA), the ACA to be challenged in court, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Your rights are just as likely to evaporate based on a slightly different composition of wizards, and it is a fight we are losing currently.

    I understand your specific instance being more precarious and that causes more fear, but other countries do not have powerful courts like this and manage to be good (or honestly better) than us on civil rights. It does not mean a total backwards slide. The tyranny of the majority is certainly a concern but right now we're operating under a tyranny of the minority. The status quo is terrible. We will be stuck in this horrible cycle of essentially doing nothing until we do something radical. Right now Republicans have literally no health care plan because they don't have to. They don't need to run on ideas or policy. We do! Maybe, just maybe, if we can actually pass some laws and make some changes, people will see that they like it and then we can really shift the overton window.

    Other countries have other voters, and different government structure from the ground up. You also might not be surprised to learn a lot of them aren't any better on the issues I present. You will also have to forgive me for not trusting either political party at this point. Obama began the process of allowing transgender troops to serve openly in the military around the middle of 2016. There has been continued pressure to drop trans rights from equality bills to get them passed because that would be easier.

    I also don't see how the Supreme Court reversing itself is inherently worse than the federal or state government. At least with the Supreme Court it is a lot less volatile so each victory is guaranteed to last longer. Title VII protections aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as an example. Much better that then hoping the electorate continues to be willing and able to vote to keep me from being unemployed and homeless. To say nothing of saving me the pain and humiliation of having to constantly publicly campaign to be treated like a person.

    monikerZeroCow
Sign In or Register to comment.