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

[CousinsCowgirl84]

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

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!

The point, I believe is to put economic pressure on the politicians so that they get replaced with presumably more liberal candidates . The people are just collateral damage….

[NoCalMike]

The right-wing often says that the left is always trying to "fundamentally transform American society" and they are usually referring to culture war/social issue stuff.  My argument would be that the vast majority of those shifts come at the demand of the majority of the country.  Now I can concede that sometimes, especially in the last decade or so, some changes, come so quick (not to the folks wanting the change, but those not "hip" to the on-coming changes) however for the most part politicians are rarely putting themselves out on a limb for progressive social issues until a lot of the country is behind them.

So, with that in mind, what about the opposite version.  If you are in the minority, which is currently the evangelical/christian nationalist/right-wing etc etc....and you want change in the opposite direction?  Well, you certainly can't do it with voting on it's own, so you go after the courts, because the courts' rulings are often much tougher to combat with legislation because every bill signed into law can be challenged, and right now, most of it that is anything significant is likely to end up at the Supreme Court where even in situation where Roberts flips, it still goes 5-4 for conservatives.   Ok, back to the re-shaping of society. If you are in the minority, and your arguments for your side of the issues isn't working, there is another tactic, and that is using the courts to start legislating, errr, ruling.....in favor of things the majority of the country does not support, and does not want.  Naturally, here come the protests, likely which will turn into riots in some cases, and then in response the GOP runs on a "law & order" platform to combat "your cities being terrorized by extremists" once the GOP takes control of all three branches you have the go-ahead to guess what.....bring in the *real* draconian law & order stuff that is not only written into law, but also backed up by a majority conservative supreme court.

 

Believing nonsense from Alito's original draft that overturning Roe is being done in a vacuum, and that basically nullifying the constitutional right to privacy has the potential to get a lot more prior cases overturned, as already evidenced by what Clarence Thomas said regarding this ruling from his separate opinion, 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/

Quote

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

 

The court isn't done yet, and I have a feeling what the court does is only really a first step into winding the clock back.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, China said:

 

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.

 

 

So your post has multiple problems (who did I judge?) but the biggest one is that it seems to be based on a false/bad stereotype.

 

https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/07/16/rural-red-states-that-voted-for-trump-are-experiencing-a-surge-in-crime/

 

Crime rates in rural America are above the national average and heavily fueled by white males.  It seems like you are pushing ideas onto me that aren't true and aren't at all related to what I said.  For what purposes I don't understand and don't really make any sense other than possibly you don't want to address the questions I asked.

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Ball Security]

If Goodell had any balls he’d pull the 2026(?) Super Bowl from Louisiana.

I understand that it’s relatively minor on a larger scale, but these states need to face repercussions.

[Long n Left]

12 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

If Goodell had any balls

Therein lies the problem.

[China]

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

who did I judge?

 

This:

 

14 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?

 

4 hours 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. 

 

 

 

So you stereotyped people that look and sound like him as being Republican

 

And stereotyping is, by definition, a form of judgment.

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, China said:

 

This:

 

 

 

So you stereotyped people that look and sound like him as being Republican

 

And stereotyping is, by definition, a form of judgment.

 

People that look and sound like hom are more likely to be Republican than the general population.  Am I wrong?

 

My post obviously was not meant to be taken that everybody that sounds and looks like that is a Republican because he obviously isn't a Republican.

 

Now go back to your statment about cops, think about what the cops get in trouble for, and I'll ask again, who did I judge?

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Llevron]

43 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

If Goodell had any balls he’d pull the 2026(?) Super Bowl from Louisiana.

I understand that it’s relatively minor on a larger scale, but these states need to face repercussions.

He is a rich older white man. Chances are high he actually agrees with all this. Or atleast makes enough money off of it not to care. 

[China]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

People that look and sound like hom are more likely to be Republican than the general population.  Am I wrong?

 

My post obviously was not meant to be taken that everybody that sounds and looks like that is a Republican because he obviously isn't a Republican.

 

Now go back to your statment about cops, think about what the cops get in trouble for, and I'll ask again, who did I judge?

 

 

 

Glad you can admit you were stereotyping.  I already told you who you judged and it has nothing to do with cops.

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, China said:

 

Glad you can admit you were stereotyping.  I already told you who you judged and it has nothing to do with cops.

 

Then why did you bring the cops up and try to make a connection between what I said and things that get cops in trouble?

[China]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then why did you bring the cops up and try to make a connection between what I said and things that get cops in trouble?

 

What they do is another form of stereotyping.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, China said:

 

What they do is another form of stereotyping.

 

Cops don't get in trouble for making statements that are accurate at a population levels about populations (which I did).  Cops get in trouble for judging people often based on bad/false ideas about populations.  Which isn't what I did.

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

Can we get the discussion back to SCOTUS?  

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Can we get the discussion back to SCOTUS?  

 

Good idea.  I'll start.  

 

SCOTUS sounds to me like the plural of scrotum.

[PokerPacker]

5 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Good idea.  I'll start.  

 

SCOTUS sounds to me like the plural of scrotum.

Nah, SCOTUS is also singular, like succubus.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Long n Left said:

Therein lies the problem.

Guys Goodell has balls. He keeps them under his wallet.

Edited June 25, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[mistertim]

Now that the far right extremist SCOTUS justices have shed their veneer of being even moderately impartial and interested in legal precedent or jurisprudence in general, I wouldn't be surprised if the right takes further advantage of it during election cycles to validate when they basically steal presidential elections via red state legislatures declaring any win by a Democrat to be invalid and sending a slate of electors for the Republican candidate instead.

 

Then it's challenged and they fast track it to SCOTUS. What do the right wing justices have to lose at this point by just saying "yeah, that's fine"? They've already outed themselves (quite proudly in the case of guys like Thomas and Alito) and they have lifetime appointments.

[NoCalMike]

When people continually harp on how the Senate works and why it doesn't work for modern society in a country of over 300 million people, this is why.  You have a modern society that by in large is moving in one direction, yet because how the infrastructure is currently set up, the whims of the minority are winning out.  We have been experiencing pre-emptive manuevering to ensure as these numbers keep going, it ultimately won't matter.  If you've got the courts, including the highest court of the land, you can essentially pass any legislation you want, but it'll always be a lawsuit away for being nullified.  Doesn't mean every piece of legislation will be shot down, but the GOP will sure as hell try.

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

When people continually harp on how the Senate works and why it doesn't work for modern society in a country of over 300 million people, this is why.  You have a modern society that by in large is moving in one direction, yet because how the infrastructure is currently set up, the whims of the minority are winning out.  We have been experiencing pre-emptive manuevering to ensure as these numbers keep going, it ultimately won't matter.  If you've got the courts, including the highest court of the land, you can essentially pass any legislation you want, but it'll always be a lawsuit away for being nullified.  Doesn't mean every piece of legislation will be shot down, but the GOP will sure as hell try.

 

This is true. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

19 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

When people continually harp on how the Senate works and why it doesn't work for modern society in a country of over 300 million people, this is why.  You have a modern society that by in large is moving in one direction, yet because how the infrastructure is currently set up, the whims of the minority are winning out.  We have been experiencing pre-emptive manuevering to ensure as these numbers keep going, it ultimately won't matter.  If you've got the courts, including the highest court of the land, you can essentially pass any legislation you want, but it'll always be a lawsuit away for being nullified.  Doesn't mean every piece of legislation will be shot down, but the GOP will sure as hell try.

We just have to see wait 50 years; in 50 years we’ll all be dead.

 

Crazy how 4 years can destroy the values of a country for the next 50 years. I grew up with roe, with increasing freedoms.  I don’t feel like I live in America anymore.

Edited June 25, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Crazy how 4 years can destroy the values of a country.

When it comes to abortion, this is the result of 50 years of deliberate, coordinated, lying. 

[China]

How about impeachment investigations for Supreme Court justices that lied in the confirmation hearings, or for Justice Thomas for not recusing himself in 2020 election cases when his wife was actively trying to help overturn the election?

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, China said:

How about impeachment investigations for Supreme Court justices that lied in the confirmation hearings, or for Justice Thomas for not recusing himself in 2020 election cases when his wife was actively trying to help overturn the election?

 

 

Yup.  I wanna see 'em try to lie again. 

And as for Thomas, he should be drawn and quartered. 

[skinsmarydu]