So we'd need to convince 10 republicans or the dems to kill the fillibuster. Yeah I'm not sure what they are worrying about.
I think they're acutely aware that they can't enforce their rulings, so if public opinion craters and no one considers the court legitimate, we quickly run into a "now let them enforce it" situation. I'm also sure they don't want a lot of public scrutiny focused on the court either, as a whole lot of the justices, especially the conservatives, walk a fine ethical line with all the perks they collect, and the political circles they run in, and if there's a push to audit them...it's going to be ugly for certain justices. Like..was Kavanaugh still gambling on sports when he wrote the NCAA opinion? Or Justice Thomas "forgetting" to disclose his wife's conservative lobbying income for five straight years.
Dark_Side on
+8
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Also if they overturn Roe outright next year, Dems might be galvanized for the midterms.
CUNY professor Angus Johnston and NYU Law professor and political analyst Melissa Murray; transcript coming on post edit
FYI: In the SCOTUS challenge to MS's 15-week abortion ban, Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of TX's SB 8, has filed an amicus brief on behalf of TX Right to Life. The brief invites the Court to overrule Roe & Casey AND Lawrence & Obergefell, 2 major LGBTQ equality decisions.
Overturning Obergefell would allow de-recognition of same-sex marriages. Overturning Lawrence would open the door to the return of sodomy laws.
Go to Johnston’s tweet for a longer thread where he explains the method the right is using and the way the Court factors in, as well as the stakes; he argues that the right is going to be able to go after Griswold after.
If they do that we have a full on crisis. Like at that point the federal government should not recognize the supreme courts authority.
Arguably we're past that point already.
+18
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
People can say whatever they want in amicus briefs, it's not a meaningful sign of the court's future intentions
I would not be surprised if the current court is hostile to Obergefell and Lawrence, but the fact that a group called "TX Right to Life" said they were bad in an amicus brief just tells us that "TX Right to Life" wants them gone, which, yeah
If they do that we have a full on crisis. Like at that point the federal government should not recognize the supreme courts authority.
Problem is what do you base it on? It’s not like the Court hasn’t countered itself before, and it’s legally recognized that the court can overrule it’s past decisions
Like, morally yes, it’s the right thing to ignore the court deliberately working to subvert human rights as a right wing attempt to entrench bigoted culture war victories for generations, but there is no legal mechanism I can think of that would allow such resistance; it’d be a constitutional crisis
People can say whatever they want in amicus briefs, it's not a meaningful sign of the court's future intentions
I would not be surprised if the current court is hostile to Obergefell and Lawrence, but the fact that a group called "TX Right to Life" said they were bad in an amicus brief just tells us that "TX Right to Life" wants them gone, which, yeah
I think this elides past the way these political groups and the current majority are bound as fellow travelers of the right’s culture wars, and what the American Right’s political strategies typically entail, particularly as it involves using these superficially unaffiliated groups to funnel cases to their judges and justices
Lanz on
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Yeah losing the right to privacy has an enormous downstream effect
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
If they do that we have a full on crisis. Like at that point the federal government should not recognize the supreme courts authority.
This abortion ban is the blueprint/test-run for rolling all these other civil rights gains back.
If SCOTUS is going to continue to allow the Fifth Circuit to defy legal precedent, then the only solution is to pack the court. Legislative attempts to address will simply be struck down.
People can say whatever they want in amicus briefs, it's not a meaningful sign of the court's future intentions
I would not be surprised if the current court is hostile to Obergefell and Lawrence, but the fact that a group called "TX Right to Life" said they were bad in an amicus brief just tells us that "TX Right to Life" wants them gone, which, yeah
I am well passed not worrying when the GOP flat out is laying instructions to the GOP lead court what they want. Because abortion rights look like they are about to be taken away, its not much of a leap for this group of aholes to send us into a real shit spiral because there is nothing that can stop them.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I doubt the court would just flat out say there's no right to privacy, as privacy is basically the impetus for multiple amendments. More likely, I think, is that they either say "well, there's a right to privacy, but this doesn't really count as privacy", kinda like they've said, "well, bribery exists, but this doesn't count as bribery". Or else they'll say "there's a right to privacy, but it can be overridden for the greater good," as they do with freedom of speech (you can't use your freedom of speech to slander) or right to own guns (you can't own a nuclear weapon).
So something like "right to privacy doesn't establish a right to marry, because legally recognizing marriage doesn't count as privacy" or "sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, but it's in service of the greater moral good, so it's a-okay."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I doubt the court would just flat out say there's no right to privacy, as privacy is basically the impetus for multiple amendments. More likely, I think, is that they either say "well, there's a right to privacy, but this doesn't really count as privacy", kinda like they've said, "well, bribery exists, but this doesn't count as bribery". Or else they'll say "there's a right to privacy, but it can be overridden for the greater good," as they do with freedom of speech (you can't use your freedom of speech to slander) or right to own guns (you can't own a nuclear weapon).
So something like "right to privacy doesn't establish a right to marry, because legally recognizing marriage doesn't count as privacy" or "sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, but it's in service of the greater moral good, so it's a-okay."
Oh that's so much better Jeffe.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I doubt the court would just flat out say there's no right to privacy, as privacy is basically the impetus for multiple amendments. More likely, I think, is that they either say "well, there's a right to privacy, but this doesn't really count as privacy", kinda like they've said, "well, bribery exists, but this doesn't count as bribery". Or else they'll say "there's a right to privacy, but it can be overridden for the greater good," as they do with freedom of speech (you can't use your freedom of speech to slander) or right to own guns (you can't own a nuclear weapon).
So something like "right to privacy doesn't establish a right to marry, because legally recognizing marriage doesn't count as privacy" or "sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, but it's in service of the greater moral good, so it's a-okay."
Oh that's so much better Jeffe.
Why would you think Jeffe is endorsing that
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I doubt the court would just flat out say there's no right to privacy, as privacy is basically the impetus for multiple amendments. More likely, I think, is that they either say "well, there's a right to privacy, but this doesn't really count as privacy", kinda like they've said, "well, bribery exists, but this doesn't count as bribery". Or else they'll say "there's a right to privacy, but it can be overridden for the greater good," as they do with freedom of speech (you can't use your freedom of speech to slander) or right to own guns (you can't own a nuclear weapon).
So something like "right to privacy doesn't establish a right to marry, because legally recognizing marriage doesn't count as privacy" or "sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, but it's in service of the greater moral good, so it's a-okay."
Oh that's so much better Jeffe.
Why would you think Jeffe is endorsing that
He's not, but like that they won't outright destroy privacy while eliminating the parts that conservatives find icky isn't reassuring. Because that's pretty much what this group does. "We won't remove this right, we'll just make it effectively gone."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
While not here, India’s already doing trial runs on the inter-religion and religious conversion issue, and I can see the right trying to import that shit given the way right wing conservatism seems to network globally these days, just putting their own local ethno-nationalist spins on it once the policy is ready to import
If they do that we have a full on crisis. Like at that point the federal government should not recognize the supreme courts authority.
Even in theory I don't see what this would accomplish. Before the courts ruled otherwise, states were pushing anti-gay, anti-sodomy, and absolute anti-abortion laws. A de-legitimized court means the states are back to doing whatever they want, barring the senate ever actually getting their act together. And even enforcing federal vs state laws would get tricky without courts adjudicating.
Maybe de-legitimizing the court is actually their play after all.
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
While not here, India’s already doing trial runs on the inter-religion and religious conversion issue, and I can see the right trying to import that shit given the way right wing conservatism seems to network globally these days, just putting their own local ethno-nationalist spins on it once the policy is ready to import
Conservatives in the UK are already tying abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights together. They're just starting with the trans rights while we're starting with the abortion rights.
With the way the court is acting at the moment, I don't think they're going to be going on a conservative spree killing all landmark progressive rulings. They're going to do what they've already been doing, a slow drip of chipping away at these things until eventually they're outlawed in all but name.
I'd put money on neo-Lochner. This is just pre-spinning the press so they report them as being obvious and natural decisions and not a ridiculous right wing power grab.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That's the thing- if they start taking shots at rulings like abortion and gay marriage directly, that's just going to piss off and motivate various groups to come out and vote and march and everything and it might make it harder for them to get the things they want done.
But if they keep going like Texas is doing- letting things remain legal while setting up an obstacle course that would make Ninja Warrior contestants scream in fear in front of stuff like abortion and gay marriage without explicitly outlawing them- that's how they're going to do it. Make it just seem like too much trouble to do, or just waste time towards an enforced time limit, or entice your local chuds to make their lives hell by dangling a bounty on them. They can still be legal, but with labyrinthine regulations and exacting obstacles and paperwork and doctor visits and "counseling" in front of what you need while having to duck a bunch of chuds out to line their own pockets with your money... they'll be as good as outlawed.
They don't have to overturn the big things- they just have to say it's legal to slam down all those obstacles in front of those services!
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
While not here, India’s already doing trial runs on the inter-religion and religious conversion issue, and I can see the right trying to import that shit given the way right wing conservatism seems to network globally these days, just putting their own local ethno-nationalist spins on it once the policy is ready to import
I thought the India thing was a ban on converting to one's spouse's (husband's) religion, and was intended to combat forced conversions to a spouse's (husband's) religion. Or is that just the public justification?
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
The whole bit of trickery is that the state very specifically cannot be the plaintiff. It's a bunch of flimflam bullshit, of course, but that's the smokescreen
So, not that it would happen, but what if Judges en masse threw out these suits for lack of standing or some other reason that essentially comes down to 'this is bullshit'? What happens then?
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
yes, the state is enforcing its own law, with its own courts
it's a ridiculous argument
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
The whole bit of trickery is that the state very specifically cannot be the plaintiff. It's a bunch of flimflam bullshit, of course, but that's the smokescreen
No. No trickery, just bullshit. Agency flows from the law. They're claiming it because no State has been brazen enough to try claiming that they can create agents of the state that do not count as agents of the state.
The way I saw it explained is that traditionally in order to sue to prevent a law from going into effect, you have to have a target of the suit who would be responsible for enforcing it. The Texas law is attempting to get around this by not allowing a traditional officer of the state, like the Attorney General or similar, to be the one bringing the case to court. So you can't sue the Attorney General (or whoever) in advance, because he isn't involved in bringing one of these cases to trial, and you can't sue any particular civilian that might bring such a case to court because they can just claim they had no intention of doing so and you can't prove otherwise. I think one of the attempts is to sue the court themselves, as they would be the ones enforcing any outcome of such a suit even if they aren't the ones bringing it up for judgement, but again this is a tricky situation because there is no guarantee any given court would find in favor of a plaintiff at this time plus I have to imagine that suing the court itself has its own set of issues.
So the idea behind the construction of the law is that it can't be stopped before at least one case has actually gone to trial, because there isn't a suitable target to sue to prevent it from happening. In the meantime the very existence of the law almost certainly causes a large amount of suffering as medical practitioners don't want to risk their license to operate and all the other knock-on effects from other people not wanting to get caught up in this mess.
SCOTUS should have instituted a stay, if for no other reason that a law constructed like this is attempting to circumvent the power of the courts, and the courts traditionally do not look kindly on such a thing. Just imagine if a state somewhere had tried this exact same construction, except the target of the lawsuits wasn't abortions but guns.
SCOTUS should have instituted a stay, if for no other reason that a law constructed like this is attempting to circumvent the power of the courts, and the courts traditionally do not look kindly on such a thing. Just imagine if a state somewhere had tried this exact same construction, except the target of the lawsuits wasn't abortions but guns.
It's not just guns either. A state could also write a copycat law that empowers civilians to turn in churches who are engaging in political speech. This is some wild west shit.
"Why are you guys upset, you can still be together as a gay couple/interracial couple/inter religious couple (you know that shit is coming too) you just don't get to call it marriage like christian white people do, duh." Coming soon to an NYT opinion piece.
While not here, India’s already doing trial runs on the inter-religion and religious conversion issue, and I can see the right trying to import that shit given the way right wing conservatism seems to network globally these days, just putting their own local ethno-nationalist spins on it once the policy is ready to import
I thought the India thing was a ban on converting to one's spouse's (husband's) religion, and was intended to combat forced conversions to a spouse's (husband's) religion. Or is that just the public justification?
The deal I heard on NPR was conversions but didn’t specify which spouse or forced; it was pretty clear the issue was conservative Hindu nationalist islamophobia as the driver, complete with a story about a neighbor reporting a couple to the police and the police being like “and… what do you expect us to do about it” while the neighbor gave a rant about wanting to preserve their national culture from the scary scary Muslims.
Which given the way conservative power players network internationally, and our own homegrown islamophobia, and the way the right tries to have their brand of evangelical Christianity be culturally dominant and preferences legally, well, there be the roadmap to copy.
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
What happens if the doctor or whoever just ignored the civil suit brought against them entirely? They get served with a court date and don't even bother to show up.
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
What happens if the doctor or whoever just ignored the civil suit brought against them entirely? They get served with a court date and don't even bother to show up.
I'm pretty sure failure to appear results in a summary judgment against, so kind of a bad idea for the person on the receiving end.
What’s the threshold/liability for those bringing suits against people? Like couldn’t thousands of people just sue the governor claiming that they suspect he helped someone get an abortion because they swore they overheard him say it one time?
I'd just say target every person who voted yes on the bill with a lawsuit, regardless of merit or evidence. Just every single person in the state who can afford it, sue every single one of those fuckers all at once and let the courts deal with telling people no.
Posts
I think they're acutely aware that they can't enforce their rulings, so if public opinion craters and no one considers the court legitimate, we quickly run into a "now let them enforce it" situation. I'm also sure they don't want a lot of public scrutiny focused on the court either, as a whole lot of the justices, especially the conservatives, walk a fine ethical line with all the perks they collect, and the political circles they run in, and if there's a push to audit them...it's going to be ugly for certain justices. Like..was Kavanaugh still gambling on sports when he wrote the NCAA opinion? Or Justice Thomas "forgetting" to disclose his wife's conservative lobbying income for five straight years.
CUNY professor Angus Johnston and NYU Law professor and political analyst Melissa Murray; transcript coming on post edit
Go to Johnston’s tweet for a longer thread where he explains the method the right is using and the way the Court factors in, as well as the stakes; he argues that the right is going to be able to go after Griswold after.
Pack the goddam court
pleasepaypreacher.net
Arguably we're past that point already.
I would not be surprised if the current court is hostile to Obergefell and Lawrence, but the fact that a group called "TX Right to Life" said they were bad in an amicus brief just tells us that "TX Right to Life" wants them gone, which, yeah
Problem is what do you base it on? It’s not like the Court hasn’t countered itself before, and it’s legally recognized that the court can overrule it’s past decisions
Like, morally yes, it’s the right thing to ignore the court deliberately working to subvert human rights as a right wing attempt to entrench bigoted culture war victories for generations, but there is no legal mechanism I can think of that would allow such resistance; it’d be a constitutional crisis
I think this elides past the way these political groups and the current majority are bound as fellow travelers of the right’s culture wars, and what the American Right’s political strategies typically entail, particularly as it involves using these superficially unaffiliated groups to funnel cases to their judges and justices
This abortion ban is the blueprint/test-run for rolling all these other civil rights gains back.
If SCOTUS is going to continue to allow the Fifth Circuit to defy legal precedent, then the only solution is to pack the court. Legislative attempts to address will simply be struck down.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I am well passed not worrying when the GOP flat out is laying instructions to the GOP lead court what they want. Because abortion rights look like they are about to be taken away, its not much of a leap for this group of aholes to send us into a real shit spiral because there is nothing that can stop them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So something like "right to privacy doesn't establish a right to marry, because legally recognizing marriage doesn't count as privacy" or "sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, but it's in service of the greater moral good, so it's a-okay."
Oh that's so much better Jeffe.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why would you think Jeffe is endorsing that
He's not, but like that they won't outright destroy privacy while eliminating the parts that conservatives find icky isn't reassuring. Because that's pretty much what this group does. "We won't remove this right, we'll just make it effectively gone."
pleasepaypreacher.net
may make a difference in terms of how much outrage/blowback they suffer for it which is all the more enraging
pleasepaypreacher.net
Offer not valid in all states
While not here, India’s already doing trial runs on the inter-religion and religious conversion issue, and I can see the right trying to import that shit given the way right wing conservatism seems to network globally these days, just putting their own local ethno-nationalist spins on it once the policy is ready to import
Even in theory I don't see what this would accomplish. Before the courts ruled otherwise, states were pushing anti-gay, anti-sodomy, and absolute anti-abortion laws. A de-legitimized court means the states are back to doing whatever they want, barring the senate ever actually getting their act together. And even enforcing federal vs state laws would get tricky without courts adjudicating.
Maybe de-legitimizing the court is actually their play after all.
Conservatives in the UK are already tying abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights together. They're just starting with the trans rights while we're starting with the abortion rights.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Seems that those days are gone.
When he wasn't just arbitrarily nuking things with made up doctrines.
But if they keep going like Texas is doing- letting things remain legal while setting up an obstacle course that would make Ninja Warrior contestants scream in fear in front of stuff like abortion and gay marriage without explicitly outlawing them- that's how they're going to do it. Make it just seem like too much trouble to do, or just waste time towards an enforced time limit, or entice your local chuds to make their lives hell by dangling a bounty on them. They can still be legal, but with labyrinthine regulations and exacting obstacles and paperwork and doctor visits and "counseling" in front of what you need while having to duck a bunch of chuds out to line their own pockets with your money... they'll be as good as outlawed.
They don't have to overturn the big things- they just have to say it's legal to slam down all those obstacles in front of those services!
I can has cheezburger, yes?
I thought the India thing was a ban on converting to one's spouse's (husband's) religion, and was intended to combat forced conversions to a spouse's (husband's) religion. Or is that just the public justification?
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
The whole bit of trickery is that the state very specifically cannot be the plaintiff. It's a bunch of flimflam bullshit, of course, but that's the smokescreen
yes, the state is enforcing its own law, with its own courts
it's a ridiculous argument
No. No trickery, just bullshit. Agency flows from the law. They're claiming it because no State has been brazen enough to try claiming that they can create agents of the state that do not count as agents of the state.
So the idea behind the construction of the law is that it can't be stopped before at least one case has actually gone to trial, because there isn't a suitable target to sue to prevent it from happening. In the meantime the very existence of the law almost certainly causes a large amount of suffering as medical practitioners don't want to risk their license to operate and all the other knock-on effects from other people not wanting to get caught up in this mess.
SCOTUS should have instituted a stay, if for no other reason that a law constructed like this is attempting to circumvent the power of the courts, and the courts traditionally do not look kindly on such a thing. Just imagine if a state somewhere had tried this exact same construction, except the target of the lawsuits wasn't abortions but guns.
there’s nothing new about that, and you can obviously sue a state that is harming you with an illegal private attorney general law.
but whether the Supreme Court is about to adopt a completely incoherent new rule is a separate question.
It's not just guns either. A state could also write a copycat law that empowers civilians to turn in churches who are engaging in political speech. This is some wild west shit.
The deal I heard on NPR was conversions but didn’t specify which spouse or forced; it was pretty clear the issue was conservative Hindu nationalist islamophobia as the driver, complete with a story about a neighbor reporting a couple to the police and the police being like “and… what do you expect us to do about it” while the neighbor gave a rant about wanting to preserve their national culture from the scary scary Muslims.
Which given the way conservative power players network internationally, and our own homegrown islamophobia, and the way the right tries to have their brand of evangelical Christianity be culturally dominant and preferences legally, well, there be the roadmap to copy.
What happens if the doctor or whoever just ignored the civil suit brought against them entirely? They get served with a court date and don't even bother to show up.
I'm pretty sure failure to appear results in a summary judgment against, so kind of a bad idea for the person on the receiving end.