The official thread of SCOTUS cementing the US as a theocractic fascist state.

[Comet]

They want control, they’ll want to control blue states as well. 

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Is that the goal? Like, I can't see into their minds, but would these people want the US to break up and have California, New York, and others break away?

 

They probably want to stoke a civil war/generate a pretext to invade the blue states.

[5timechamp]

so, the end goal is for folks to eventually need licensing for child birth..

 

are we on the road to the 3 seashells or on the path to war on Klendathu?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

NEWS.GALLUP.COM

---

Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is down 11 percentage points this year, falling to a new low of 25%.

 

Quote

With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision before the end of its 2021-2022 term, Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.

 

Quote

These results are based on a June 1-20 Gallup poll that included Gallup's annual update on confidence in U.S. institutions. The survey was completed before the end of the court's term and before it issued its major rulings for that term. Many institutions have suffered a decline in confidence this year, but the 11-point drop in confidence in the Supreme Court is roughly double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline. Gallup will release the remainder of the confidence in institutions results in early July.

 

[Ghost_MH]

9 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

NEWS.GALLUP.COM

---

Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is down 11 percentage points this year, falling to a new low of 25%.

 

 

 

 

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Any non-politically savvy person can look at the Supreme Court today and will rightly assume that the reason they keep overturning pervious decisions is because of modern day politics. It doesn't matter how many words the justices throw into their decision to dress themselves as impartial. At the end of the day, they're saying the previous courts were wrong and the correct opinion coincidentally mirrors whatever is happens to be in the GOP's platform.

[5timechamp]

the RGB passing and/or unwillingness to retire was such a facilitating event..

 

I swear, its like a movie where everything comes up roses for the bad guys… at what point do the “good guys” start winning?

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

The people who are saying they aren’t going to bother voting aren’t doing so because they’ve waited in 8 hour long lines, they are people who simply don’t care enough to actually do anything about what they claim matters to them. The people who care are still waiting in 8 hour lines because they understand what is on the line for them.

So. Fucking. True.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Jason]

You know, a less radical possibility than actively trying to foment a civil war is that they just want to stop people from blue states moving to red states, e.g. for cheaper housing. Getting blue leaning people to leave red states and go to blue states would cement their power via the electoral college and Senate by itself. 

[Ghost_MH]

44 minutes ago, Jason said:

You know, a less radical possibility than actively trying to foment a civil war is that they just want to stop people from blue states moving to red states, e.g. for cheaper housing. Getting blue leaning people to leave red states and go to blue states would cement their power via the electoral college and Senate by itself. 

 

Which is why Democrats need to stop dicking around when it comes to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

You know, a less radical possibility than actively trying to foment a civil war is that they just want to stop people from blue states moving to red states, e.g. for cheaper housing. Getting blue leaning people to leave red states and go to blue states would cement their power via the electoral college and Senate by itself. 

In Texas at least, transplants are more conservative than natives 

[Amazatron]

Stack the court, one side has already declared that they will escalate to high hell, so the only way out of this is to stack the court. Worse case scenario is Republicans do it right back if they regain power and you're literally back to this very point.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 hours ago, Amazatron said:

Stack the court, one side has already declared that they will escalate to high hell, so the only way out of this is to stack the court. Worse case scenario is Republicans do it right back if they regain power and you're literally back to this very point.

The only sure for an activist court is a powerful and active legislature. 

[Anathema-]

18 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The only sure for an activist court is a powerful and active legislature. 

 

Most of their worst decisions could be over turned with simple legislation.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Anathema- said:

 

Most of their worst decisions could be over turned with simple legislation.

This is true. Also if the legislature actually did things we wouldn’t have to rely on judicial fiat or executive action. but because all but the most basic functions of government or appointing judges requires 3/5 of senators (because reasons) to do anything this makes the executive to put square pegs in round holes and hope that actually qualified and sane judges to allow some form of democratic release (let alone give judges veto authority over literally everything)

[BloodyHell]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:44 PM, Ghost_MH said:

 

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Any non-politically savvy person can look at the Supreme Court today and will rightly assume that the reason they keep overturning pervious decisions is because of modern day politics. It doesn't matter how many words the justices throw into their decision to dress themselves as impartial. At the end of the day, they're saying the previous courts were wrong and the correct opinion coincidentally mirrors whatever is happens to be in the GOP's platform.

A lawyer I know spoke a long time ago about how Roe was a bad legal decision, and abortion rights should have been codified into law long ago. Now, he's pro choice, he wasn't saying Roe is wrong in any way, just that a lot of legal professors thought it stood on extremely thin legal ground. It was extremely hard to connect free speech and privacy to abortion, and the court stretched the definition to fit what should be a basic human right for women. For that reason, Democrats should have immediately protected those rights with their last supermajority, because they have known this was always the goal. Again, I definitely don't understand all the legal principal behind it, just that he told my wife and I this almost a decade ago, when democrats lost their majority.

 

Of course, democrats wield power as little as possible, as often as they can. Like fighting a sword fight with a wet rope.

 

This was always the goal, and democrats allowed it to happen. And now they are fundraising and telling people to vote, and old Nancy can't figure out why people are mad at her.

[Ghost_MH]

2 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

A lawyer I know spoke a long time ago about how Roe was a bad legal decision, and abortion rights should have been codified into law long ago. Now, he's pro choice, he wasn't saying Roe is wrong in any way, just that a lot of legal professors thought it stood on extremely thin legal ground. It was extremely hard to connect free speech and privacy to abortion, and the court stretched the definition to fit what should be a basic human right for women. For that reason, Democrats should have immediately protected those rights with their last supermajority, because they have known this was always the goal. Again, I definitely don't understand all the legal principal behind it, just that he told my wife and I this almost a decade ago, when democrats lost their majority.

 

Of course, democrats wield power as little as possible, as often as they can. Like fighting a sword fight with a wet rope.

 

This was always the goal, and democrats allowed it to happen. And now they are fundraising and telling people to vote, and old Nancy can't figure out why people are mad at her.

 

Democrats are not without blame here. They've had plenty of chances to do something about abortion and just refused to. I assume they refused to do so as to give cover to their pro-birth members since Democrats aren't a political party, but a coalition. It's the same reason they don't want to rock the boat too much when it comes to gun control. They could fix this tomorrow, but they'll likely wait until after the midterms while praying for a larger majority so they can give those couple of pro-birth Dems political cover when they vote against pro-choice legislation.

 

The party is run by idiots if they don't see how this win for Republicans could excite their base as they next set their eyes on gay marriage. Meanwhile, liberal voters become disillusioned as Dems don't even put anything out to vote for fear of embarrassing some of their colleagues.

[SuperSpreader]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:29 AM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

In Texas at least, transplants are more conservative than natives 

 

Dude the Californians who have moved out here are insane conservative. 

[SuperSpreader]

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Democrats are not without blame here. They've had plenty of chances to do something about abortion and just refused to. I assume they refused to do so as to give cover to their pro-birth members since Democrats aren't a political party, but a coalition. It's the same reason they don't want to rock the boat too much when it comes to gun control. They could fix this tomorrow, but they'll likely wait until after the midterms while praying for a larger majority so they can give those couple of pro-birth Dems political cover when they vote against pro-choice legislation.

 

The party is run by idiots if they don't see how this win for Republicans could excite their base as they next set their eyes on gay marriage. Meanwhile, liberal voters become disillusioned as Dems don't even put anything out to vote for fear of embarrassing some of their colleagues.

 

All this. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

A lawyer I know spoke a long time ago about how Roe was a bad legal decision, and abortion rights should have been codified into law long ago. Now, he's pro choice, he wasn't saying Roe is wrong in any way, just that a lot of legal professors thought it stood on extremely thin legal ground. It was extremely hard to connect free speech and privacy to abortion, and the court stretched the definition to fit what should be a basic human right for women. For that reason, Democrats should have immediately protected those rights with their last supermajority, because they have known this was always the goal. Again, I definitely don't understand all the legal principal behind it, just that he told my wife and I this almost a decade ago, when democrats lost their majority.

 

Of course, democrats wield power as little as possible, as often as they can. Like fighting a sword fight with a wet rope.

 

This was always the goal, and democrats allowed it to happen. And now they are fundraising and telling people to vote, and old Nancy can't figure out why people are mad at her.

The decision was fine your lawyer friend just has lawyer brain

[Nokra]

49 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The decision was fine your lawyer friend just has lawyer brain

 

In a country that (theoretically/ideally) recognizes the rule of law, isn't lawyer brain the right brain to have in this case?  

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, Nokra said:

 

In a country that (theoretically/ideally) recognizes the rule of law, isn't lawyer brain the right brain to have in this case?  

Yeah, seems pretty obvious he was right. And it's not like this isn't the one thing the GOP has been very honest about since the Tea Party days. Roe was always the "prize", because they knew it was flimsy enough to overturn as soon as they had a majority. 

[LazyPiranha]

People arguing over codifying abortion rights are missing the forest for the trees.  You’re acting like the majority of this court gives even a single wet fart about the legal pretense they’re using.  You think that if Obama or anyone had actually passed a law preventing the outlawing of abortions that these chuds wouldn’t also just declare that law unconstitutional as well?  

[Jason]

 

[crispy4000]

On 6/25/2022 at 12:03 AM, Jason said:

You know, a less radical possibility than actively trying to foment a civil war is that they just want to stop people from blue states moving to red states, e.g. for cheaper housing. Getting blue leaning people to leave red states and go to blue states would cement their power via the electoral college and Senate by itself. 

If social politics didn’t keep people from moving from blue to red states in the middle of the pandemic, I sincerely doubt social politics would convince them to move back.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

11 minutes ago, Nokra said:

 

In a country that (theoretically/ideally) recognizes the rule of law, isn't lawyer brain the right brain to have in this case?  

No. The law in theory exists to serve the people, the lawyer brained exist to serve the law, and can only happen in liberal law circles. 
 

their commitment to “well it was rightly decided but for a bad reason” is exactly the type of bullshit you expect from someone with lawyer brain. Accepting of conservative dogma (“substantive due process is bad!” Or accepting textualism or originalism as the only valid ways to interpret the constitution) buys into their framing of what the constitution is supposed to do, especially with regard to unenumerated rights

 

 but ultimately what these lawyer brained people refuse to consider is that these decisions are ideological not lawyerly. And their acceptance of “rightly decided for the wrong reasons” implicitly would credit a bad decision with “good” reasoning when that isn’t the point at all; the point should be “was this rightly decided?” And everything else is retconning conservative framing. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[osxmatt]

As expected

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Didn’t have even 4 votes to review so that’s good

[mclumber1]

As the saying goes, "You win some, you lose a lot".

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

As expected

 

 

Formally overruled the lemon test great 

[Oberon]

52 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

As expected

 

 

Can't wait to the 5 prayers to Allah during class!

[Guest]

I like both Concepcion and Kennedy

 

17 minutes ago, Oberon said:

Can't wait to the 5 prayers to Allah during class!

Not sure if anybody else listened to the Trojan Horse Affair podcast series, but I was SHOCKED to learn the UK allows openly religious public schooling, basically allowing schools to be a reflection of the community they serve. The schools in the story were having outright Islamic worship services as part of the school day, not simply making accommodations for students and faculty.

 

Here we at least try to obfuscate some of that  

[ort]

Surely if the football coach was Muslim and was leading his players in Muslim prayers the ruling would have been identical...