Rough week for lefties

[brenthutch 384]

But a great week for freedom loving Americans as SCOTUS strikes a blow against racism and religious discrimination. 

[kallend 1,625]

 

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating.  Notwithstanding. . . .

The need by the right is about ensuring that Americans they don’t know and don’t like will suffer. They consider it a win when black and brown people suffer. A win for men when women suffer. A win for old, rich people when younger, poorer people suffer. Zero sum game, you lose therefore we win. And our current Supreme Court has become the favored weapon.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

 

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating.  Notwithstanding. . . .

The need by the right is about ensuring that Americans they don’t know and don’t like will suffer. They consider it a win when black and brown people suffer. A win for men when women suffer. A win for old, rich people when younger, poorer people suffer. Zero sum game, you lose therefore we win. And our current Supreme Court has become the favored weapon.

Its sad and yet is helpful in defining their character. Kicking weak and vulnerable people who just want freedom to live the way they choose. For the right white in America the courts and the constitution are weapons.

[wmw999 2,123]

In some ways this thread is like a fighting couple, each talking as though the other weren’t there.

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 911]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

In some ways this thread is like a fighting couple, each talking as though the other weren’t there.

Wendy P. 

Just like how the conservative side of the USSC looks upon the majority of Americans and its obligation to intregrety. You're very insightful!

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

 

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating.  Notwithstanding. . . .

 

To paraphrase… ‘I have no idea what I am talking about but I will opine nevertheless’

SCOTUS, stood up for religious freedom, struck a blow against institutional racism and took a stand for personal responsibility.  It was a good week.
 

Edited July 1, 2023 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,123]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

SCOTUS, stood up for religious freedom, struck a blow against institutional racism and took a stand for personal responsibility.  It was a good week.

There’s always a spin line for any decision. What would your opinion have been if a Muslim had refused to build a website for a wedding to be held in a church?

Wendy P. 

[ryoder 1,388]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

 

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating.  Notwithstanding. . . .

The need by the right is about ensuring that Americans they don’t know and don’t like will suffer. They consider it a win when black and brown people suffer. A win for men when women suffer. A win for old, rich people when younger, poorer people suffer. Zero sum game, you lose therefore we win. And our current Supreme Court has become the favored weapon.

As a pundit I follow said recently:

Whatever state you live in, look at the legislation being proposed by the GOP in your state, then ask yourself:

How much of it is designed benefit you, and how much of it is designed to hurt someone else?

[jakee 1,257]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

But a great week for freedom loving Americans as SCOTUS strikes a blow against racism and religious discrimination. 

Doublethink is very popular these days, I see.

[jakee 1,257]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

SCOTUS, stood up for religious freedom, struck a blow against institutional racism and took a stand for personal responsibility.  

Yes, I’m sure that’s how the racists are spinning it. Unfortunately it’s the opposite of true.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

SCOTUS, stood up for religious freedom,

When they should be standing up for freedom from religion. Every business should be able the "right to refuse service to anyone", but not everyone of a certain race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. To be able to do so, it seems to me, is a violation of our social compact whereby we each and all pay into the infrastructure that we each and all rely on to conduct our businesses and grow the economy for our mutual benefit. That such a departure is now codified in the name of brotherly love makes it all the more odious, I think.

Moving on to student debt you only need to look to how the legal justifications arise, those inspirational bits of incisive jurisprudence and analyses by way of analogies, to get a feel for how such clever minds saw standing where none existed so to then be able to jump quickly to the so called "Major Questions Doctrine" to justify cancelling the cancellation of a small amount of student debt:

"A second hypothetical centered on a babysitter who took the kids to an amusement park for the weekend, having been given a parent’s credit card and told: 'Make sure the kids have fun,'" CNN reported. "Emboldened, the concurring babysitter takes the kids on a road trip to an amusement park, where they spend two days on rollercoasters and one night in a hotel." -Amy Coney-Barrett

I'll give Justice Barrett this much: her reasoning definitely does give rise to some major questions.

 

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

There’s always a spin line for any decision. What would your opinion have been if a Muslim had refused to build a website for a wedding to be held in a church?

Wendy P. 

That would be just fine 

[headoverheels 291]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That would be just fine 

Even if essentially all web site builders were muslims?

 

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, headoverheels said:

Even if essentially all web site builders were muslims?

 

But they are not, so your point is moot 

[gowlerk 1,914]

10 hours ago, kallend said:

 

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating.  Notwithstanding. . . .

The need by the right is about ensuring that Americans they don’t know and don’t like will suffer. They consider it a win when black and brown people suffer. A win for men when women suffer. A win for old, rich people when younger, poorer people suffer. Zero sum game, you lose therefore we win. And our current Supreme Court has become the favored weapon.

I don’t read it either. I can say for sure that the last week of June is likely to be a bad time in the USA for many more years.

Edited July 1, 2023 by gowlerk

[brenthutch 384]

If you don’t like it you can thank Senate Democrat for abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind”

[jakee 1,257]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If you don’t like it you can thank Senate Democrat for abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind”

Thanks for demonstrating once again that Republicans are allergic to taking responsibility for anything they do. There’s always someone else to blame.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Thanks for demonstrating once again that Republicans are allergic to taking responsibility for anything they do. There’s always someone else to blame.

I’m pretty sure the Rs are taking full credit for the super-majority of conservatives on the SC and the historical rulings this week.  If you want to how this was made possible, look no further than Senate Ds. Hoist by their own petard. 

[mistercwood 287]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

But they are not, so your point is moot 

The entire case is moot (re: the religious freedom/website one), it should never have been in front of SCOTUS in the first place. I don't say that because I don't like the outcome, I say it because it literally did not meet normal requirements for litigation.

The entire case was a hypothetical. There was no client, or company to build this alleged website. It was a woman making up a potential scenario, and saying she worried she *might* fall afoul of the law if she theoretically acted in a certain way in the future.

That's not how SC cases work. You need an actual event with harmed parties, for a ruling to be made.

If this had been a case with an outcome favourable to leftist causes, you'd be losing your damned mind, and you'd be right to do so. Instead it's owning the libs so you're cackling with glee, even though it's the most blatant case of judicial activism in your lifetime. In the absence of actual harmed parties and a real event, this is by definition "legislating from the bench". Cheering it on is blatantly un-American, and you should be ashamed.

[ryoder 1,388]

5 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

The entire case is moot (re: the religious freedom/website one), it should never have been in front of SCOTUS in the first place. I don't say that because I don't like the outcome, I say it because it literally did not meet normal requirements for litigation.

The entire case was a hypothetical. There was no client, or company to build this alleged website. It was a woman making up a potential scenario, and saying she worried she *might* fall afoul of the law if she theoretically acted in a certain way in the future.

That's not how SC cases work. You need an actual event with harmed parties, for a ruling to be made.

If this had been a case with an outcome favourable to leftist causes, you'd be losing your damned mind, and you'd be right to do so. Instead it's owning the libs so you're cackling with glee, even though it's the most blatant case of judicial activism in your lifetime. In the absence of actual harmed parties and a real event, this is by definition "legislating from the bench". Cheering it on is blatantly un-American, and you should be ashamed.

How true! I've been seeing commentaries about this, and HCR covered it in last night's letter:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-30-2023

[billvon 2,400]

13 hours ago, wmw999 said:

There’s always a spin line for any decision. What would your opinion have been if a Muslim had refused to build a website for a wedding to be held in a church?

Wendy P. 

But . . . . but . . . . that's completely different!  That would be an attack on Christianity and America!

[jakee 1,257]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m pretty sure the Rs are taking full credit for the super-majority of conservatives on the SC and the historical rulings this week.  If you want to how this was made possible, look no further than Senate Ds. Hoist by their own petard. 

Simply not true. Republicans made it possible, and Republicans did it. Every single part of the process by which they stacked the Supreme Court against the will of the American people was driven by their own lust for power.

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Simply not true. Republicans made it possible, and Republicans did it. Every single part of the process by which they stacked the Supreme Court against the will of the American people was driven by their own lust for power.

They couldn’t have done it had the Ds did not done away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. With the filibuster in place, nominees would have to have support from both sides of the aisle and thus would naturally be more moderate. The Democrats eliminated the filibuster so they could ram through radical left wing zealots, against the will of the American people driven by their own lust for power.  The Republicans simply applied the “turnabout is fair play” doctrine.

Edited July 2, 2023 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,257]

42 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They couldn’t have done it had the Ds did not done away with the filibuster for judicial nominees.

That’s an outright lie. Republicans changed the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. Nothing the Democrats did made it possible, nothing they could have done would have stopped it. 
 

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The Democrats eliminated the filibuster so they could ram through radical left wing zealots, against the will of the American people driven by their own lust for power. 

Another lie. The Democrats changed the rules for other nominees so they could get any confirmations. The Republicans had pledged, out loud in public, to block any and all Democrat nominees. To reframe that as simply working against radical nominees is transparent bullshit.

By contrast, the Republicans by their own admission worked against the will of the American people to ram through the fastest nomination in history, of an ultra-radical Justice, so they could overturn settled law that the large majority of the American people did not want overturned.

The fact that you have to be so dishonest in the way you talk about this subject clearly shows that you know how anti-democratic and frankly un-American the Republican’s actions have been here.

[kallend 1,625]

12 minutes ago, jakee said:

That’s an outright lie. Republicans changed the rules for Supreme Court confirmations. Nothing the Democrats did made it possible, nothing they could have done would have stopped it. 
 

Another lie. The Democrats changed the rules for other nominees so they could get any confirmations. The Republicans had pledged, out loud in public, to block any and all Democrat nominees. To reframe that as simply working against radical nominees is transparent bullshit.

By contrast, the Republicans by their own admission worked against the will of the American people to ram through the fastest nomination in history, of an ultra-radical Justice, so they could overturn settled law that the large majority of the American people did not want overturned.

The fact that you have to be so dishonest in the way you talk about this subject clearly shows that you know how anti-democratic and frankly un-American the Republican’s actions have been here.

Very interesting article in NYT last week explaining the psychology of lying - with particular reference to the most prolific liar  ever to hold the US presidency and why so many people support him despite knowing full well that he is a lying grifter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/opinion/donald-trump-presidency-lies.html