Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Because they’ve bought textualism whole cloth like a bunch of morons. It’s a conservative framework that came out of the post Roe world in conservative circles.
 

Without the basis of substantive due process (the basis of Roe) you effectively have no rights, without it is legal formalism and maybe procedural due process where the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as they do the right paperwork (they can but that should not be the basis of our supposedly free and democratic government).
 

what substantive due process says is that there are some rights that the government cannot regulate, enumerated or not. Taking the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments into consideration it is clear to see that there is an unstated right to privacy protected by the constitution. That’s where you get the often criticized penumbras language like it’s some fucking gotcha like we’re subject to an ancient logic puzzle when the people writing this shit didn’t put that much thought into it. Some rights simply aren’t listed, like the right to travel, and the constitution is not a full list of rights, it even says so!
 

buying into the textual or originalist arguments you get to manipulate legislative intent, definitions, common meaning, etc. these strictly speaking will inevitably lead to insane bullshit like the independent legislature theory. Because it can be a logical extension of the text itself and lawyers love that shit. 
 

but fortunately you don’t have to listen to that stuff when making a values argument because the law is a fiction, and scotus isn’t a logicians committee. So called legal experts are hacks. What is important is what the law does. And roe did great at protecting privacy and this the right to an abortion just fine. You don’t actually have to hand it to the regressives because the reasoning for overturning roe was irrelevant, it was a political move. Giving cover for so called poor reasoning is the ultimate cuck move. 

While I’m no fan of originalism, it can at least be said to fit into a (poor) understanding of human language.  Textualism fails to even grasp what human language *is*, much less how it *works*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:
220702-kavanaugh-home-protest-mjf-1201-b
WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

Protest activity and threatening behavior outside the homes of justices has increased since the draft Supreme Court abortion decision was leaked, the court's security chief said.

 


Well they haven’t taken away the right to peaceful protest yet. So fuck you Republican judges and enjoy the fucking bed you made yourself. 🖕🏼🖕🏼

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:
220702-kavanaugh-home-protest-mjf-1201-b
WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

Protest activity and threatening behavior outside the homes of justices has increased since the draft Supreme Court abortion decision was leaked, the court's security chief said.

 


 

No reason to picket a house if no one lives inside of it youknowwhatimean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2022 at 8:12 PM, skillzdadirecta said:
original.jpg
WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM

The great “convergence” of the mid-20th century may have been an anomaly.

 

 

The mid-20th century political consensus in the United States that essentially formed around the Great Depression/World War II/Cold War was unquestionably a historical anomaly that effectively ended with the demise of the Soviet Union.  From that point onward, it's been a steady reversion to the polarized mean that characterized nearly the entirety of the American political experiment.

  • True 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The state constitution requires proposed amendments to pass both chambers in a two-year legislative session, then be advertised to the public before the next fall election. In the second round that follows, those proposals then must pass both chambers in the following two-year session. They would then go before voters as separate questions for the final say.

 

Amendments do not require the governor’s support.

 

In the debate Thursday night, Costa accused Republicans of turning to the constitutional amendment process as a way to avoid the veto of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat.

 

The bill is in its first two-year session so must be advertised three months ahead of the Nov. 8 election if the Republican majority wants to get it to voters during the 2023-24 session that starts in January.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These people do not deserve to live a quiet comfortable life. At best, anti social decisions should be met with regular public shunning.

They should be spit on every time they go out in public. They've lost that privilege.

  • Halal 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These people do not deserve to live a quiet comfortable life. At best, anti social decisions should be met with regular public shunning.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These people do not deserve to live a quiet comfortable life. At best, anti social decisions should be met with regular public shunning.

Also Manchin and Sinema. At this point, theres very little suffering they don't deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a link to this while reading an article on court oversight. 

 

I say if the court resorts to ISL to overthrow a legitimate Democratic victory, the Dems fight back by invoking departmentalism.

 

I mean, the republic is essentially over at that point anyway.  What would be left to lose?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Oberon said:

Can Democrats expand the size of supreme court if they control the Senate or do they also need to hold the house for that?

They would need the house senate and presidency

 

 they’d also have to want to do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

They would need the house senate and presidency

 

 they’d also have to want to do it

 

So better chance than 3 months ago but still slim to none of realistically happening

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...