On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, could same-sex marriage be next to go?

Justice Thomas suggests the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.

www.houstonchronicle.com

"Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

 

[Heathen]

See above reply to Heathen.

You don't bring ungloved fists to a gun fight.

So bring a gun?

I wouldn't call Manchin a Moderate. He's a conservative democrat.

And if the party tries to "primary him", they'd just lose the seat to a Republican. I don't think West Virginia is voting in a liberal / progressive democrat. But, who knows.

Right, I’m aware. I just don’t know of any other options that are long term worse for the party than “waiting to see what the Joe Machins and Kirsten Sinemas of the party do” to get anything done. With both of them voting along party lines like the Repubs do, we’d be a lot further ahead. But they cannot be relied upon.

 

[Taurus]

I wouldn't call Manchin a Moderate. He's a conservative democrat.

And if the party tries to "primary him", they'd just lose the seat to a Republican. I don't think West Virginia is voting in a liberal / progressive democrat. But, who knows.

The point is that Manchin loses. Kochblocking your President's signature legislation (when said legislation isn't obvious folly) should mean a quick trip to unemployment.

 

[Heathen]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bi...nds-after-abortion-ruling-sources-2022-06-29/

 

[MT15]

Even though Trans people aren’t mentioned in the title, I hop it’s okay to put this here. It’s the first case to attempt to deprive people of medical treatment to cite Dobbs.

Alabama cites Supreme Court abortion decision in transgender youth case

Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.

www.reuters.com

“Echoing the high court's language in striking down Roe, the Alabama appeal filed on Monday argued that the state has the authority to outlaw puberty-blocking hormones and other therapies for transgender minors in part because they are not "deeply rooted in our history or traditions."

The appeal also asserted that such treatments are dangerous and experimental, contrary to broad agreement among mainstream medical and mental health professionals that such gender-affirming care saves lives by reducing the risk of depression and suicide.”

This is authoritarianism at its worst. The state wants to insert itself into medical treatment of a group of people who are at risk, and deny medical treatment based on largely religious principles. This warped reactionary version of Christianity (we all know that is where these efforts come from) is the greatest danger to our nation. It also clearly indicates that the idea of Republicans being advocates of “small government” has always been a cynical lie.

 

[wardorican]

Even though Trans people aren’t mentioned in the title, I hop it’s okay to put this here. It’s the first case to attempt to deprive people of medical treatment to cite Dobbs.

Alabama cites Supreme Court abortion decision in transgender youth case

Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished women's constitutional right to abortion, Alabama has cited that ruling in a bid to outlaw parents from obtaining puberty blockers and certain other medical treatment for their transgender children.

www.reuters.com

“Echoing the high court's language in striking down Roe, the Alabama appeal filed on Monday argued that the state has the authority to outlaw puberty-blocking hormones and other therapies for transgender minors in part because they are not "deeply rooted in our history or traditions."

The appeal also asserted that such treatments are dangerous and experimental, contrary to broad agreement among mainstream medical and mental health professionals that such gender-affirming care saves lives by reducing the risk of depression and suicide.”

This is authoritarianism at its worst. The state wants to insert itself into medical treatment of a group of people who are at risk, and deny medical treatment based on largely religious principles. This warped reactionary version of Christianity (we all know that is where these efforts come from) is the greatest danger to our nation. It also clearly indicates that the idea of Republicans being advocates of “small government” has always been a cynical lie.

I was just coming here to post this article.

Oh yeah, some states are going to go full draconian.

So much for 'freedom'.

 

[J-DONK]

I think this is probably true. Cities and areas that are traditionally progressive are getting more so, while the rest of the country has moved slightly right, with red areas really moving right. Just my hunch, though. And while I wish that Biden would push for expanding the SC, and/or more cases where they suspend the filibuster, I don’t see much if any support for that where I live. I can agree that it is frustrating.

Do people really think the country is becoming more conservative overall? Since, when? Bush won the popular vote for president in 2004, but that was on the back of losing it in 2000 in a controversial election. Before that? 1988

Biden is more progressive then Obama who was more progressive then Clinton.

If polling is accurate about progressive attitudes for each age bracket. America should slowly overtime continue to become more progressive as the younger cohorts become a larger share of the likely voter demographic.

I'm asking myself when will the tyranny of the minority end? Not, that the country is actually becoming more conserative.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Another overlooked decision
=======================
Amid many momentous decisions from the Supreme Court in the final week of its term, the importance of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta — a jurisdictional fight involving Indian reservations — may go overlooked.

But its effects will reach far beyond Oklahoma and its land disputes.
The 5-to-4 decision, released Wednesday, blunts the effects of the court’s 2020 ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which reinforced that much of Oklahoma was, legally, Indian country, where many crimes were beyond the reach of the state and its laws.

With its new, sweeping ruling, the court reinstates a piece of Oklahoma’s pre-McGirt power over this territory by upending the law on reservations throughout the country.

The court held Wednesday that all states have, as a matter of state sovereignty, the power to prosecute non-Indian crimes within Native lands. And in a bold claim that departs from centuries of federal Indian law precedent, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, “Indian country is part of the State, not separate from the State.”


To put it bluntly, this decision is an act of conquest. And it could signal a sea change in federal Indian law, ushering in a new era governed by selective ignorance of history and deference to state power…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/01/castro-huerta-oklahoma-supreme-court-tribal-sovereignty/

 

[Taurus]

Another overlooked decision
=======================
Amid many momentous decisions from the Supreme Court in the final week of its term, the importance of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta — a jurisdictional fight involving Indian reservations — may go overlooked.

But its effects will reach far beyond Oklahoma and its land disputes.
The 5-to-4 decision, released Wednesday, blunts the effects of the court’s 2020 ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which reinforced that much of Oklahoma was, legally, Indian country, where many crimes were beyond the reach of the state and its laws.

With its new, sweeping ruling, the court reinstates a piece of Oklahoma’s pre-McGirt power over this territory by upending the law on reservations throughout the country.

The court held Wednesday that all states have, as a matter of state sovereignty, the power to prosecute non-Indian crimes within Native lands. And in a bold claim that departs from centuries of federal Indian law precedent, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, “Indian country is part of the State, not separate from the State.”


To put it bluntly, this decision is an act of conquest. And it could signal a sea change in federal Indian law, ushering in a new era governed by selective ignorance of history and deference to state power…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/01/castro-huerta-oklahoma-supreme-court-tribal-sovereignty/

In practice, this may end up being a good thing. Not in the philosophical sense, but practical. A lot of Native police forces are laughably underfunded and non-Natives have been getting away with untold crimes because the State Troopers haven't had jurisdiction. Now they do. In a better world this would mean that those criminal palefaces will stand a chance of being brought to justice. In this world? We'll have to see.

 

[wardorican]

Funny, and it seems to fit...haha.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Case in the fall session
==================
When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority insisted they were merely returning the issue of abortion to the democratic process.

But a case the court has announced it will hear in its October term could make that democratic process a lot less democratic.


With that case, Moore v. Harper, the justices will review a North Carolina Supreme Court decision holding that the state constitution prohibits extreme partisan gerrymanders.

The Supreme Court’s choice to take the case could presage yet another decision that will undermine democracy, by prohibiting other government institutions — here, state courts — from protecting voting rights and democracy……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/02/moore-harper-gerrymandering-supreme-court-state-voting-rights/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good read
=============
To many Americans, the idea that you might encounter numerous armed people on a routine trip to the supermarket seems like a dystopian nightmare of threatened violence and unceasing fear.

To others — including a majority of the Supreme Court — it sounds like “freedom.”


The court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which invalidated state laws requiring people to show a special need to carry guns outside their homes, essentially said that every state must have a gun regime of the kind that red states favor……

They have their work cut out for them. Justice Clarence Thomas’s decision in Bruen set out a positively deranged legal standard — that if any contemporary gun regulation doesn’t have “a distinctly similar historical regulation” from the 18th century, then it is presumptively unconstitutional.


This is the “heads I win, tails you lose” gun logic of the court’s conservative majority: History binds those of us who want regulations but liberates the gun fetishists.

If you asserted that the Constitution only guarantees the right to bear a flintlock musket, they’d laugh and say that “arms” means not what was available at the time the Second Amendment was written but whatever guns are popular today.

Yet they also insist that only those regulations nearly identical to what was in place 250 years ago may be permitted.


Nevertheless, Thomas’s opinion acknowledged that ancient gun laws included restrictions on carrying weapons in “sensitive places.” He said it would be acceptable to keep guns from locations such as schools, government buildings and courthouses…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/01/democratic-states-pass-new-gun-regulations/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Don’t forget Their EPA ruling
======================
The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply cut back the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce the carbon output of existing power plants, a blow to the Biden administration’s plans for combating climate change.


The ruling infuriated President Biden and environmentalists, who said it raised formidable obstacles to the United States meeting its climate goals, including the president’s goal of running the U.S. power grid on clean energy by 2035.

“Another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards,” Biden said.


But the Republican-led states that challenged the broad authority the EPA claimed said it was a dutiful examination of the Clean Air Act and a proper acknowledgment that Congress had not given such vast powers to the agency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/

 

[dtc]

When the ruling was leaked and people worried about this exact thing being the next steps others said it was ridiculous and it wouldn’t happen

And yet, here we are

Tax Cut "conservatives" have been saying "They're never going to overturn Roe" for my whole adult life.

They were wrong. The new justices are liars. Clarence Thomas is a kook and the fact that a vocal, religious minority has overtaken our nation is disgusting.

 

[dtc]

No, not really. That's why I said 'part'.

It's true that the GOP's far right policies have been ignited in the wake of Trump and in part stemming from Reagan policies. But to
act like the state of the party plays no role here is to have one's head in the ground, metaphorically.

The Democrats had YEARS through the Obama tenure when they had the majority and heading into the 2016 election to establish a
strong enough base of support to beat a random real estate mogul like Trump. They had YEARS to distinguish themselves from Repubs.
But they didn't, plain and simple. In the states they lost, the states that mattered...Democrats should have EASILY won. Rust Belt States.
States that Democrats should have made strong inroads to on the subjects of providing good jobs, workers rights, family leave, childcare, schooling,
etc. Instead? The voters narrowly rejected Clinton and the Democrats. There are many theories why, but one that is accepted pretty widely
is that the Democratic platform didn't stand for enough. It didn't do enough to convince voters. In other words - it didn't have a strong enough
message for why someone should vote blue. And Clinton assumed she had it in the bag.

You can call it trope. You can dismiss what I'm saying. I"m used to hearing it. But you need to understand that folks like myself aren't against Democrats. We are Democrats. We just realize that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is a great way to have 'A Handmaid's Tale' become reality in a few years, much less in 2024 when a Biden with no real track record of solid accomplishments faces an even more deranged Trump and the ever-present conspiratorial goons that got us into this mess in the first place.

I simply want the Democrats to actually stand for more. And to distance themselves from the 'reasonable middle' which happens to be squarely in the right in America's Overton window.

Democrats did not narrowly lose. They won with an increasing majority of the popular vote and moving to the left is not what mainstream Democrats want.

We want rational and reasonable government by smart people who give an actual damn about the country and the people in it. We don't want a troupe of AOCs nuts any more than we want a bunch of rightwingers like we've got now. We aren't willing to lie to the extreme and paint opponents as pedophiles who eat children because we aren't stupid enough to believe it or naive enough to believe anyone would actually vote that way, but here we are.

 

[dtc]

Americans would act favorably to progressive economic policies while a significant number unfavorably to (what they consider to be) extreme social policies. Going left, or at least getting framed as being left on niche issues like trans-athletes and defunding the police, is what hurts Democrats today. Going further left on those issues is not going to help win any elections.

Exactly. Fair or not, a person born as a man competing in women's swjmming after transitioning is a stupid bridge to die on.

Hell, if Democrats could just brand reasonablenss with some soundbite friendly slogans they ought to win, but they allow themselves to be berated over the stupidest of messages.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Exactly. Fair or not, a person born as a man competing in women's swjmming after transitioning is a stupid bridge to die on.

Hell, if Democrats could just brand reasonablenss with some soundbite friendly slogans they ought to win, but they allow themselves to be berated over the stupidest of messages.

It's no surprise that Bernie is one of the most popular Democrats even in Trump world. While he obviously supports all the relevant social issues, the thing he constantly hammers home is wealth inequality and promoting things that many Trump voters want like universal healthcare, etc.

 

[MT15]

TBH, Fox never needed to run a negative campaign. The super work channel that is MSNBC did that. Pepperidge farms still remembers Chuck Todd, and Chris Matthews comparing Sanders supporters to Nazi's.

Then you got the braindead take of "WhY Didn'T alL thOSe SanDers sUPPorteRS VotE foR HRC?"

P.S. That whole debacle points out socially progressive =! economically progressive. MSNBC is all over transgender bathrooms, but you better not say a word about unions, higher minimum wage or M4A.

This is mostly a bunch of bunk, to be honest. It’s talking points from the Bernie Bros. I remember an MSNBC host snickering about Clinton with prominent guests after she won the nomination. In prime time. Misogyny knows no ideology.

Clinton ran a flawed campaign; she shouldn’t have been the nominee. But, she was, and the failure of progressives to “hold their nose” and support the D candidate is part of the reason we got Trump. That’s not “brain dead”. That’s just acknowledging the difference between the two parties. Rs don’t have that problem.

MSNBC has a mix of ideology in their hosts, they have some of the only truly progressive voices to get national airtime. Your assertions are baseless.

 

[zztop]

This is mostly a bunch of bunk, to be honest. It’s talking points from the Bernie Bros. I remember an MSNBC host snickering about Clinton with prominent guests after she won the nomination. In prime time. Misogyny knows no ideology.

Clinton ran a flawed campaign; she shouldn’t have been the nominee. But, she was, and the failure of progressives to “hold their nose” and support the D candidate is part of the reason we got Trump. That’s not “brain dead”. That’s just acknowledging the difference between the two parties. Rs don’t have that problem.

MSNBC has a mix of ideology in their hosts, they have some of the only truly progressive voices to get national airtime. Your assertions are baseless.

I had forgotten about it until mentioned, b/c I don't often look at MSNBC, but Chris Matthews did kind of compare Bernie's NV win to the Nazi's rapid advance over Europe

Chris Matthews Apologizes For Comparison Of Bernie Sanders’ Nevada Win To Nazi Invasion Of France

Chris Matthews Slammed For Comparing Bernie Sanders Win To Nazi Invasion Of France

deadline.com

This is not the first time Matthews got into hot water when talking about Sanders. Earlier this month, he connected Sanders’ embrace of democratic socialism to Cold War executions.

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd also made some questionable comments about Sanders when he quoted an article from a conservative writer referred to Sanders’ supporters as the “digital brownshirt brigade.”