b_m_b_m_b_m

I doubt we get a wholesale repeal of roe immediately. You’re going to see a chipping away of the ability to access abortions by regulatory action and other such things. In fact I think state laws that ban abortion or completely repeal the roe decision, for the time being, will be struck down, but laws that effectively shut it down will stand. So more laws like doctors must have admitting privileges at all hospitals within 15 miles of a crisis pregnancy center, or that specific outpatient procedures (such as early first trimester abortions via pill) must occur at licensed medical facilities. of course violation of these laws will no doubt carry a harsh penalty for patients nurses and doctors involved but the majority will just gloss over that. But the bad faith statement of “roe isn’t getting overturned!” Will technically be true, like that matters.

Then pay the price politically for the shutdown. Like clockwork

And for those of you keeping score at home, republicans hold both state houses in AZ, wi, mi, pa, nc, ga, fl, oh, tx and even the governor of az, ga, fl, oh, and tx not saying this will happen, but the republicans have means, motive, opportunity, and a lack of meaningful repercussions due to undemocratic gerrymandering, a broken constitution (encompassing the election of the president to the judicial system and more) and general authoritarian tendencies of one party and sheepishness of the so called opposition

Also I can tell you how the courts conservatives will rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org//static/favicon/wikipedia.ico Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission - Wikipedia EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG so next look where republicans have both houses and proceed accordingly

Looking forward to getting manchin on the “abolish the filibuster and pack the courts” train to only be thwarted by Dianne Feinstein lmao

I also predicted that

Boy howdy I bet we have 50 senators who can’t wait to replace her and dontchaknow pence there to break the tie also what was rbgs cause of death? We need a long form death certificate!!!!

Roberts threw out the main enforcement mechanism of the voting rights act because the formula used to decide what states and localities were subject to preclearance was 40 years old, despite the law being renewed by congress nearly unanimously in 2006 and signed into law by the president, only 7 years prior to the case coming before the court. That’s it. That’s the reasoning. the roberts court will absolutely make up whatever they need to in order to advance their version of the conservative agenda. Every conservative member of the court is a federalist society goon, don’t ever forget it.

To really torture the analogy the uk is definitely the guy who brags, after a particularly nasty divorce, “yeah I kicked the bitch out “ like it’s something to be proud of

The only reason roberts is a swing justice in any sense of the word is because as CJ, when he’s in the majority he decides who writes the opinion for the court. Despite his statements to the contrary, he realizes better than most that the court is a political institution and there are no “balls and strikes” but him slow rolling conservative judicial thought (again, only in some limited cases) to grant “liberal” victories is an apparent “two steps forward, one step back” pattern of his judicial holdings and is more damaging to liberal/left/progressive causes in the long term. I hate to harp on this case but NFIB, despite holding up Obamacare, is probably the most damaging ruling against congressional power of interstate commerce regulation since the 30’s because CJR wrote the opinion for the court!

One is a condition of related money as determined by congress, one is the executive deciding to go it alone. Unless there’s some statutory authority given to the executive that I’m not aware of that allows them to withhold funds without congressional approval due to there being “anarchist jurisdictions” in fact a good faith reading of nfib v seilbius (lol I know) would mean that this is an unconstitutional withholding of funds congress good executive bad it’s not hard folks

Evergreen, solve for X

SCOTUS 6-3: yes the president, not congress, can withhold funds from a jurisdiction

I formally apologize for not saying "fuck RBG and her dumbass decision to stay on the court" instead of "fuck RBG" Mistakes were made. I do stand by my (unstated) opinion that she was not even the best woman on the court, let alone justice. Sotomayor takes this, easily.

And I'm not even getting into her case law on the bench

Would love to know where I'm shitting on her grave. Leaders are complex and should be evaluated as such! Even generally good people should be criticized! No gods, no kings, etc

I'm of the opinion that we should celebrate the good things people do, condemn the bad things, and realize that most people are complex and in general shouldn't be universally celebrated or disregarded as a person.

Turns out she isn't perfect

I'm told I can't criticize a decision she made because I allegedly wasn't impacted by one of her decisions as a judge

You can dislike more than one thing: the system, the past decisions, and the choices we have.

You gonna tell me bill barr has ever held a weapon lmao ok fuckin gottem

Failure to observe the game at play, and plan accordingly, is a failure and should be criticized. It's like if you ran for president and explicitly want to run up the popular vote, ignoring the electoral college entirely. Is the system shit? Yes! Do you still need to play by those rules? Also yes

You can be critical of this decision regardless of her other influence

Bernie bro confirmed