1 1
JoeWeber

The Supreme Court is our biggest problem

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, kallend said:

So how do you feel about the governor of S. Dakota stating  on television that a 10 year old victim of rape should be forced to bear her rapist's child and that said governor supports legislation to make that happen?

I found the media clip, read it and listened to what she said. Why anyone would think that is OK is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

I hope you realize that this is just the beginning.

That's the thing in a nutshell. I honestly believe that garden variety conservative minds are willfully oblivious to what is happening and what is certainly going to happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated categorically that children should not be forced to give birth.  Many in the GOP (like the governor of S. Dakota) disagree

Edited by kallend
Edit fur Spelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's the thing in a nutshell. I honestly believe that garden variety conservative minds are willfully oblivious to what is happening and what is certainly going to happen.

And when they do start happening, will say "well I certainly don't support that!  I had nothing to do with this!  It's probably the loser libs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2022 at 10:15 AM, billeisele said:

Yep. So which Court one was correct? The current Court wrote a fairly scathing opinion of the original ruling saying it was, "....egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority." 

Without reading the full SC opinion, the appendix, references, and the consenting and dissenting documents then all of us are forming opinions based off of summary info we've seen. 

Requoting this to post the following:

The current court ignored a LOT of things when it wrote the opinion.

Including (courtesy of Heather Cox Richardson):
 

Quote
Both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association, the flagship organizations of professional historians in the U.S., along with eight other U.S. historical associations (so far), yesterday issued a joint statement expressing dismay that the six Supreme Court justices in the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe v. Wade ignored the actual history those organizations provided the court and instead “adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than thirty years.” Although the decision mentioned “history” 67 times, they note, it ignored “the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of ‘quickening,’ the time when a woman first felt fetal movement.”
The statement focuses less on politics than on the perversion of history, noting that “[t]hese misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future,” an undermining of the “imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The Court’s majority opinion…does not meet those standards.”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Requoting this to post the following:

The current court ignored a LOT of things when it wrote the opinion.

Including (courtesy of Heather Cox Richardson):

Joe - the info is interesting but I'm no lawyer or historian and unsure of how that applies. I am watching with interest what is occurring at the State level. Reading an article today it said:

-  NC governor signed an Ex Order to continue access to abortion as provided under NC law and shielded any involved person from being extradited to another state. They are legal up to 24-28 weeks and longer if medically necessary, but not for the purpose of sex selection.

- CO, Maine, Massachusetts and RI signed similar orders

 - SC banned abortions past 6 weeks with exceptions for rape and incest

- TN is up through 6 weeks with no exceptions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - the info is interesting but I'm no lawyer or historian and unsure of how that applies. I am watching with interest what is occurring at the State level. Reading an article today it said:

-  NC governor signed an Ex Order to continue access to abortion as provided under NC law and shielded any involved person from being extradited to another state. They are legal up to 24-28 weeks and longer if medically necessary, but not for the purpose of sex selection.

- CO, Maine, Massachusetts and RI signed similar orders

 - SC banned abortions past 6 weeks with exceptions for rape and incest

- TN is up through 6 weeks with no exceptions

Come on, Bill, that's not the place to look; that's a misdirection foisted on you by the conservatives who want a national ban and national laws that criminalize, not just humiliate, women who need abortions and cross state lines. Do you honestly believe a Trump or DeSantis or any other base pandering Republican President would use executive powers to help pregnant women and girls?

The Supreme Court is far from done. Do you think the idea just popped into their minds without their conviction it came by way of divine inspiration? Do you think that they don't each believe the decision is in full conformance with their own interpretations of their holy books? There is no rationality here; this is not borne of political partisanship: we are being ruled now by the parties of god.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The United States! A country based on a shared constitution that aligns every state and codifies shared freedoms and restrictions. Apart from this freedom. And that one. Oh and that. Certainly not that. All of those are completely different depending on where you live.

 

Can we just be done with pretending we're a country already?

Edited by yoink
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I am watching with interest what is occurring at the State level. Reading an article today it said:

-  NC governor signed an Ex Order to continue access to abortion as provided under NC law and shielded any involved person from being extradited to another state. They are legal up to 24-28 weeks and longer if medically necessary, but not for the purpose of sex selection.

Yep.  There will be a few states where it will still be legal.  Meanwhile:

Alabama: Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Arkansas: Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Mississippi: Abortion is banned with exceptions for rape, but not incest.
Missouri: Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Oklahoma: The state prohibited abortion at the point of fertilization in May, with exceptions for rape and incest.
South Dakota: Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas: Ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, set to take effect later this summer.
Wisconsin: Ban, makes performing them a felony. The Democratic governor and attorney general have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the ban.
West Virginia: Bans abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest, and criminalizes providers.
Arizona: Ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and that criminalizes providers. 
Kentucky: Ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, temporarily blocked

So there will be more raped/pregnant 10 year olds that can't get abortions because of the Supreme Court's religious agenda.   So . . . yay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - the info is interesting but I'm no lawyer or historian and unsure of how that applies. 

Think about how this applies - a bunch of Justices appointed on a promise to overturn Roe v Wade overturned Roe v Wade. They came to a decision about the constitution that is not only counter to every other panel of Justices since the ‘70s, it just so happens to match the very strongly held religious anti-abortion beliefs if those justices.

Be honest with yourself, dude. You know that’s not a coincidence, stop pretending it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'm curious, are you pointing out that it's not quite universal yet or are you amongst the appalled?

I posted a link to a reference that I felt was helpful and objective, but for the most part I'm just here to listen.  I will say however that I honestly didn't think that this would happen, and perhaps even couldn't happen - so ya, I'm a bit concerned not only about this but how a variety of current issues are going to play out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - the info is interesting but I'm no lawyer or historian and unsure of how that applies...

What applies is the fact that several fairly large groups of historians filed 'friend of the court' briefs.

That is, anyone who has a valid opinion can file a brief outlining that opinion with the court.
The basic idea is that there are people out there with a lot more expertise in various subjects than the justices, and there opinion should be considered.
While the justices aren't required to include these in the decision, blatantly ignoring them is a bad idea.

In this case, the court claimed that there is a 'history' of outlawing abortion.

Which flies in the face of the 'Friend of the Court' briefs filed by...
Historians.

So the 'conservative court' LIED...

Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Originalists" claim to interpret the law according to how the law would have been understood at the time the law was written.  By definition, then, they have to look at history to interpret the law.  If they choose to ignore factual analysis from professional historians who are not directly involved in the case, and instead accept without reservation a highly biased "history" compiled by one of the litigants, their decisions must be rooted in nothing more than their personal bias.  Five of the six members of the conservative wing are conservative Catholics, and Gorsuch is a member of the Episcopalian church which holds similar positions to Catholicism on many issues.  I think that, at best, they (like most people) are resistant to ideas and even facts that challenge their personal values and beliefs.  Some I suspect have an intentional agenda to erase social practices that conflict with their idea of "how things should be", i.e. a society governed along conservative Catholic morals.

There are also disturbing reports that members of anti-abortion groups that were participants (via friend-of-the-court briefs) in the Dobbs case have, for years, participated in prayer meetings with Alito and Thomas (and also earlier with Scalia). 

For many people, their religion is the single most important influence in their lives.  It's naiive I think to expect that supreme court justices (or anybody) will be able to entirely set that aside.  I fully expect that the near future will see the "catholization" of LGBTQ rights, same-sex marriage, and even (leveraging abortion) contraception rights.  Even though Loving v Virginia was based on the 14th amendment just like Roe and Griswold I don't expect that to be attacked any time soon because Thomas is in an interracial marriage and also the Catholic church does not oppose interracial marriage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jakee said:

Think about how this applies - a bunch of Justices appointed on a promise to overturn Roe v Wade overturned Roe v Wade. They came to a decision about the constitution that is not only counter to every other panel of Justices since the ‘70s, it just so happens to match the very strongly held religious anti-abortion beliefs if those justices.

Be honest with yourself, dude. You know that’s not a coincidence, stop pretending it is.

Hi jakee,

THIS.  A thousand time THIS.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

"Originalists" claim to interpret the law according to how the law would have been understood at the time the law was written.  By definition, then, they have to look at history to interpret the law.  If they choose to ignore factual analysis from professional historians who are not directly involved in the case, and instead accept without reservation a highly biased "history" compiled by one of the litigants, their decisions must be rooted in nothing more than their personal bias.  Five of the six members of the conservative wing are conservative Catholics, and Gorsuch is a member of the Episcopalian church which holds similar positions to Catholicism on many issues.  I think that, at best, they (like most people) are resistant to ideas and even facts that challenge their personal values and beliefs.  Some I suspect have an intentional agenda to erase social practices that conflict with their idea of "how things should be", i.e. a society governed along conservative Catholic morals.

There are also disturbing reports that members of anti-abortion groups that were participants (via friend-of-the-court briefs) in the Dobbs case have, for years, participated in prayer meetings with Alito and Thomas (and also earlier with Scalia). 

For many people, their religion is the single most important influence in their lives.  It's naiive I think to expect that supreme court justices (or anybody) will be able to entirely set that aside.  I fully expect that the near future will see the "catholization" of LGBTQ rights, same-sex marriage, and even (leveraging abortion) contraception rights.  Even though Loving v Virginia was based on the 14th amendment just like Roe and Griswold I don't expect that to be attacked any time soon because Thomas is in an interracial marriage and also the Catholic church does not oppose interracial marriage.

Hi Don,

This especially true for those raised in the Catholic Church.

Islam comes in a close 2nd.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2022 at 1:05 PM, gowlerk said:

The nation, like Canada, was built on the backs of hard working immigrants. And of course slaves for a couple hundred years. 

See my reference for change in another thread, Put inmates in the fields, in the ditches...you get the picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And maybe women will start filing for deductions on their state taxes as soon as they're pregnant, too. Federal no -- it's been left up to the states.

Wendy P.

Indeed, I am all a giggle and agog just waiting for fetal personhood laws to start gumming up the works. Will any refund based on the extra deduction need to be returned, and with interest, in the sad event of a miscarriage? Surely society can afford pregnancy tests to confirm the HOV lanes aren't being crowded by scofflaws. Will everyone qualify for Social Security a year earlier? With no more birthdates will we now all have a legal date of conception? As long as the world has gone insane we might as well all join in lest we miss out on the fun, I'm thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Well, it took about as long as I expected.

A well known 'shit stirrer' (his previous antics are in the article) has asked to give a Satanic invocation at a High School football game.

 

https://patch.com/florida/miami/activist-asks-lead-satanic-prayer-fl-high-school-football-game?fbclid=IwAR1KDgQXhyHPC7MT-0iA8d8kmFIr_0cPz56NwvqeXCjeRRLj-V2NHwGD_PA

This is the guy who, on finding out that many city council meetings were started with a Christian prayer, asked to offer a prayer to Satan too.
Instead of refusing him, most places just abandoned the opening prayer (it's in the story).

And keep in mind that there are many Evangelicals who don't think that Satanists should have 1st amendment rights. 

The next time that is presented to me (not expecting it), I'll counter with 'how about revoking those rights for organizations that allowed their leadership to prey on children?'

Edit to add the link to the story. Duh.

Edited by wolfriverjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The next time that is presented to me (not expecting it), I'll counter with 'how about revoking those rights for organizations that allowed their leadership to prey on children?'

As far as I know, not a single Satanist priest has abused children.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1 1