SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, China said:

 

Well, you'd be wrong.  I'd take having justices on my side when my party's in power over never having them on my side.  Not perfect but better than what we have now.  And right now the Supreme Court is at an all time low of confidence at 25%.  The majority of this country thinks they suck, because they do.  So, even a temporary change is better than no change at all.

 

Are you talking about a change in policies or the confidence in the Supreme Court?

What about the long term change?

 

Do you really think that every party packing the Court when they have control is going to long term improve people's confidence in the Court?

 

If you do, I think you are wrong.  I think you'll see the confidence in the Supreme Court drop even further if that starts to happen.

 

The answer to changes in the Supreme Court is go have people go vote.  If enough people are upset about Roe v. Wade, then pro-choice supporters will vote, they'll win elections, and there will be a national abortion law.  (which I'm not sure the Supreme Court will let stand, but let's see what happens with that first.)  And even if that fails most states will enact pro-choice policies.  And longer term, Supreme Court Justices that lean left will be appointed.

 

(The video is meaningless.  "When the centrist party has a luke warm response, the authoritarians grab more control."  What are the examples and counter examples?  When has a country been sliding into authoritarianism and the centrist party done something well against historical norms like packing the Supreme Court prevented the slide into authoritarianism?

 

Assassinating Cesar did marvels from preventing Rome's slide into authoritarianism. (not!)

 

That's the not the worse case scenario.  Further erosion of the confidence in the Supreme Court and the Republicans going even further and doing something else that is a non-historical norm is the worse case scenario.  It isn't hard to imagine that expanding the Court actually speeds the process up.  The extreme rights answer might be to assassinate Supreme Court Justices.  He's just making stuff up.

 

I watch his videos and most of them I walk away with well that's pretty much just made up in 5 minutes without much thought and 0 research.  Can anybody tell me how that guy got so popular?  Or is he just popular here?  Is it just that he preaches to the choir with a voice and look from the other side?  People like to be told they are right by somebody that looks and sounds like the other side?)

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[spjunkies]

Hopefully more actions like this are ahead, make these places hurt.

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

Hopefully more actions like this are ahead, make these places hurt.

 

Many of them are already hurting economically.  I don't think ever making anybody more poor changed their (religious) beliefs.  And realistically, this is almost the exact opposite approach we've taken historically in foreign policy where we've said if people are economically successful they will be more likely to embrace democracy and freedom (though if you look at China I think that approach has been questionable at best).

 

Though in this case, I think it does add to the us vs. them mentality, but I'm not sure that matters much from left.

 

It might not make the situation worse, but I'm pretty sure it isn't going to make the situation better.  I guess it might make people on the left feel like they are doing something useful.

 

But from any practical standpoint I don't understand, Yeah let's do that!

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Fan since a Fetus]

6 hours ago, tshile said:

So. Do I need to get snipped now before they outlaw that?

I wanted to do it for years, but this motivated me to go for it.  Around here, it will take a few months to get the procedure done now because so many people are lining up. Good luck. I had two options. I took the first appointment I could get. The other option was wait until the end of August or September. I didn’t want to take that chance. 

[tshile]

Great

 

 

[NoCalMike]

I think what might not have hit the younger generations yet is that with the Supreme Court making this decision, and the age of the justices, plus how much of an advantage they have coupled with the crapshoot of who will be President for the next round of picks.....this isn't something that is getting remedied anytime soon.  There is a good chance this could be a generational or multi-generational time frame of getting this overturned, and that doesn't account for what other horrors take place in the country between now & then that will be put into place to  make it worse and harder to change.   A President, no matter how liberal, isn't fixing this issue by themselves. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by NoCalMike

[tshile]

You don’t have to get it overturned

you need an amendment 

federal law can help until it’s challenged

but you need an amendment

 

I’m curious what it does to the midterms. Democrats should be pitching the amendment strategy 

 

and they should say the plan is to make other things amendments so this can’t continue happening

 

itll be interesting g to see if they figure that out and pull it off 

[The Evil Genius]

In the short term, people need to be absolutely protected from overzealous prosecution if they travel out of state for abortions.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

31 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I think what might not have hit the younger generations yet is that with the Supreme Court making this decision, and the age of the justices, plus how much of an advantage they have coupled with the crapshoot of who will be President for the next round of picks.....this isn't something that is getting remedied anytime soon.  There is a good chance this could be a generational or multi-generational time frame of getting this overturned, and that doesn't account for what other horrors take place in the country between now & then that will be put into place to  make it worse and harder to change.   A President, no matter how liberal, is fixing this issue by themselves. 

 

 

I had read something about being able to codify Roe v Wade and I really don't have any understanding on what exactly that means but I know it doesn't require the SC or so I gathered, just a certain Congressional majority percentage (Dems or like-minded congress members) to do whatever codifying means.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Califan007 The Constipated

[Destino]

10 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

I think what might not have hit the younger generations yet is that with the Supreme Court making this decision, and the age of the justices, plus how much of an advantage they have coupled with the crapshoot of who will be President for the next round of picks.....this isn't something that is getting remedied anytime soon.  There is a good chance this could be a generational or multi-generational time frame of getting this overturned, and that doesn't account for what other horrors take place in the country between now & then that will be put into place to  make it worse and harder to change.   A President, no matter how liberal, is fixing this issue by themselves. 

This isn’t just about younger generations, it’s about women specifically.  This is going to be a real fight for modern feminists that have never needed to show the grit their grandmothers did.  Those old ladies fought when the cost was high and painful for things we don’t even think about… and they won.  Suddenly, a battle those old warriors won, is back… and some feminists facing it are probably somewhere, right now, arguing over whether “women’s rights” is inclusive enough on abortion.  Maybe it should be “possibly pregnant persons rights”?  I don’t say this to mock them, but to highlight the distractions they have taken on by making feminism about so many groups and so many issues.
 

the Supreme Court is against them and might remain so for a generation. The amount of organization and outreach needed to climb this political mountain is massive.  Can celebrity and hashtag feminism reach enough women, and influence them to action, to win this fight?  Can “equality” feminism, that carries with it a subtext that simply being for women is somehow wrong, switch gears and unify around fighting for the advancement of women again? Are they comfortable with seeking power and using it to tell everyone how **** is going to go from here on out, or is that still too patriarchal?  

 

Todays feminists must lead on this issue, and they must win so decisively that a hostile court is unable to stop them.  

 

[China]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Do you really think that every party packing the Court when they have control is going to long term improve people's confidence in the Court?

 

If you do, I think you are wrong.  I think you'll see the confidence in the Supreme Court drop even further if that starts to happen.

 

 

 

There's not much lower the people's confidence in the Supreme Court can go.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

The answer to changes in the Supreme Court is go have people go vote.  If enough people are upset about Roe v. Wade, then pro-choice supporters will vote, they'll win elections, and there will be a national abortion law.  (which I'm not sure the Supreme Court will let stand, but let's see what happens with that first.)  And even if that fails most states will enact pro-choice policies.  And longer term, Supreme Court Justices that lean left will be appointed.

 

I agree voting is the best option, but I'm not convinced (especially with the way voting rights continue to be under assault - check the relevant thread), that it will help, especially as you note that the Supreme Court may not let it stand.  You mention longer term.  Justices are appointed for life.  It may be a while before the next justice is replaced, and at least a couple left leaning justices would be needed just to balance things out.  And there's no guarantee that when the next justice is appointed, that it will be done so under a liberal administration.  I think too much damage will be done waiting for long-term relief (read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion about what they're targeting next) and there's no certainty a balance in the court is achievable any time soon, just waiting on the natural course of events. 

 

I watch his videos and most of them I walk away with well that's pretty much just made up in 5 minutes without much thought and 0 research.  Can anybody tell me how that guy got so popular?  Or is he just popular here?  Is it just that he preaches to the choir with a voice and look from the other side?  People like to be told they are right by somebody that looks and sounds like the other side?)

 

 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Is it just that he preaches to the choir with a voice and look from the other side?  People like to be told they are right by somebody that looks and sounds like the other side?

 

What makes you think he looks different than me?  Or that that's how people "look from the other side"? Why are you judging based on looks?  Stereotype much?

Edited June 25, 2022 by China

[Fergasun]

I don't understand why this is a surprise or why polling on the Court is low now.

 

It just means people haven't been paying attention.  Like, if you think your vote for Trump mattered, you were an idiot.  

[FrFan]

The Supreme Court might need an update about "We The People".

About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

I respect religious beliefs but I always thpught abortion should be a women's decision

Edited June 25, 2022 by FrFan

[Cooked Crack]

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this was legal thanks to all the states passing anti George Floyd laws.

[skinsmarydu]

 

 

This is from Nick Sundberg.  Very powerful. 

(I'm not on Twitter, so I could only post it by screenshot.) 

[PleaseBlitz]

12 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Expand the SCOTUS right now.   Appoint progressive judges.   Overturn this **** on appeal.  (We can do that, right?) 

Paging @PleaseBlitz or @DogofWar1...

 

Edit, add:  I'm so upset I hit "send" too soon.  I just got back from my massage, and my therapist is my best progressive friend over the last 30 years.  It took everything I could muster to relax, and everything she could muster to keep from crushing me...my shoulder and knee are feeling better, but both of our hearts are screaming for all the women who haven't been through menopause and are subject to this stupid decision. 

The answer isn’t expanding the court. The answer is defeating politicians who appoint religious fundamentalists to federal judgeships. 

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The answer isn’t expanding the court. The answer is defeating politicians who appoint religious fundamentalists to federal judgeships. 

Well, you know I agree with your assessment.  I'm doing all I can. 

But when SCOTUS appointees lie to Congress?  We've gotta go boldly forward. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

[The 12th Commandment]

What's going on with Clarence et al, when it comes to contraception?  Is it just a Monty Python esque "every sperm is sacred thing"? Or is there more to it?  And if it is that, aren't the laws being decided by protestants who, if I recall, were the ones joyfully able to use contraceptives? 

 

I'm confused.

[Hersh]

We still haven’t gotten the decision from this court which is likely to gut the EPA’s ability to regulate power plant emissions if not wide spread regulatory ability across the government. 
 

This could be as harmful as the Roe decision.

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, China said:

 

There's not much lower the people's confidence in the Supreme Court can go.

 

 

I agree voting is the best option, but I'm not convinced (especially with the way voting rights continue to be under assault - check the relevant thread), that it will help, especially as you note that the Supreme Court may not let it stand.  You mention longer term.  Justices are appointed for life.  It may be a while before the next justice is replaced, and at least a couple left leaning justices would be needed just to balance things out.  And there's no guarantee that when the next justice is appointed, that it will be done so under a liberal administration.  I think too much damage will be done waiting for long-term relief (read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion about what they're targeting next) and there's no certainty a balance in the court is achievable any time soon, just waiting on the natural course of events. 

 

 

What makes you think he looks different than me?  Or that that's how people "look from the other side"? Why are you judging based on looks?  Stereotype much?

 

Well, right off the bat Congress is at 12%  So it could certainly go to where the people that would be changing the law and appointing the new members are.

 

If people go vote it becomes much more likely that next Justice will be appointed under a liberal administration.  And yes, it might take a while that's why I said longer term (though Alito and Thomas are both 70+ now.  I also think a reasonable case can be made to impeach Thomas based on him lying under oath during his conformation hearing.)

 

I didn't say that he looked different than you.  You don't describe his popularity and aren't the only person that posts his videos.  He looks different than most people.

 

As to him looking like the other side:

1.  He's white.  White people are more likely to be evangelical Republicans than the rest of the population.

 

2.  He's male.  White males are more likely to be Republican.

 

3.  He dresses and has a beard that is more common in rural areas.  White males living in rural areas are more likely to be Republican. 

 

That white rural males tend to be more conservative and Republicans is a fact.  You put him in front of anybody that knows the basic political breakdown in this country and they are going to tell you he is more likely a conservative Republican that not.  Saying that isn't judging somebody based on their looks.  Any more than people saying young white males are more likely to be mass shooters.  That obliviously doesn't mean that you look at every white young male and say there's a future mass shooter.

 

And the few Republicans that have come in here don't post his videos.

 

And I did notice rather than address my questions or points on the video, you just changed the topic.

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[skinsmarydu]

Agree,  Hersh.

But Roe is personal.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The 12th Commandment said:

What's going on with Clarence et al, when it comes to contraception?  Is it just a Monty Python esque "every sperm is sacred thing"? Or is there more to it?  And if it is that, aren't the laws being decided by protestants who, if I recall, were the ones joyfully able to use contraceptives? 

 

I'm confused.

 

The historically Catholic line of thinking on contraceptions has been adopted by many more conservative Evangelicals.

[China]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

As to him looking like the other side:

1.  He's white.  White people are more likely to be evangelical Republicans than the rest of the population.

 

2.  He's male.  White males are more likely to be Republican.

 

3.  He dresses and has a beard that is more common in rural areas.  White males living in rural areas are more likely to be Republican. 

 

That white rural males tend to be more conservative and Republicans is a fact.  You put him in front of anybody that knows the basic political breakdown in this country and they are going to tell you he is more likely a conservative Republican that not.  Saying that isn't judging somebody based on their looks.  Any more than people saying young white males are more likely to be mass shooters.  That obliviously doesn't mean that you look at every white young male and say there's a future mass shooter.

 

 

Isn't that how profiling works?  Isn't that why cops get in trouble for racial profiling, because rather than "white rural males" they are picking up "urban black males?" Seems like judging by looks to me.

 

[EmirOfShmo]

So this...

 

 

...turned into this