Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    MT15 said:
    Attempted return to pertinence, I agree with almost everything said in this opinion piece:

    slate.com

    Yes, Amy Coney Barrett Promised the Court Isn’t Partisan at a Mitch McConnell Celebration. That’s Not the Only Issue.

    Justices have a long history of wanting to speak without having to answer for their words.
    slate.com slate.com

    ‘I am not going to waste your time or mine asking whether Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s remarks this past weekend—when she stood next to Mitch McConnell in Louisville and intoned that the “court is not composed of a bunch of partisan hacks”—mean she is irredeemably clueless or just that she believes we are. I don’t much care. A celebration of McConnell—who blocked Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2016 and then described it in June as “the single most consequential thing I’ve done in my time as majority leader of the Senate”—is not a perch from which to serve up platitudes about judicial independence. McConnell manipulated the size of the court, not once but twice in the past four years, and Barrett accepted those spoils. McConnell has also already pledged that if a vacancy appears and the GOP wins the Senate next year, he will block any Biden nominee in 2024 and very likely in 2023 as well. He is indeed the patron saint of an independent federal judiciary, so long as the jurists there are all dependent on him.’
    Click to expand...
    Spot on.
     
    can someone explain how the texas law even came about?

    Murder is illegal

    A state passes a law that says you can kill someone if that someone made fun of how you danced

    Instead of the Supreme Court saying "WTF??!! You can't do that, murder is illegal!"

    They opt not to hear the case so now this state has a bunch of bad dancing killers running around

    is that more or less the case here?
     
    Check this here out. Came from an email newsletter I got by Robert Reich.

    When I was at law school with Clarence Thomas ​

    And now he's getting ready to overturn Roe v. Wade​


    Sep 24
    Just one year after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Republican nominees on the Supreme Court are on the way to overturning Roe v. Wade. But they’re going out of their way to speak out publicly against the partisanship they’re actively engaged in.

    ​
    Share​

    Earlier this week, Clarence Thomas told a crowd of more than 800 students and faculty at Notre Dame that the Court shouldn’t be viewed in partisan terms, and that justices don’t base their rulings on “personal preferences.” But if not personal preferences, where exactly do they discover the law? Thomas never said. When asked whether the attorneys presenting oral arguments ever compel him to change his mind, Thomas said, “almost never.”

    Last week, the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, told a crowd in Kentucky that Supreme Court justices are not a “bunch of partisan hacks.”

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    If there’s any doubt about the partisan hackery of the Supreme Court’s six Republican appointees, it will be on full display in the Court’s next session when they overturn Roe in the case they’ve already teed up to do the dirty deed: Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, about Mississippi’s law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week. It’s scheduled to be argued December 1.

    Flashback: I was in law school in 1973 when the Supreme Court decided Roe, protecting a pregnant person’s right to privacy under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Also in my class at the time was Clarence Thomas, along with Hillary Rodham (later Hillary Clinton) and Bill Clinton.

    The professors used what you probably know as the “Socratic method” – asking hard questions about the cases they were discussing and waiting for students to raise their hands in response, and then criticizing the responses. It was a hair-raising but effective way to learn the law.

    One of the principles guiding those discussions is called stare decisis — Latin for “to stand by things decided.” It’s the doctrine of judicial precedent. If a court has already ruled on an issue (say, on reproductive rights), future courts should decide similar cases the same way. Supreme Courts can change their minds and rule differently than they did before, but they need good reasons to do so, and it helps if their opinion is unanimous or nearly so. Otherwise, their rulings appear (and are) arbitrary — even, shall we say? — partisan.

    In those classroom discussions almost fifty years ago, Hillary’s hand was always first in the air. When she was called upon, she gave perfect answers – whole paragraphs, precisely phrased. She distinguished one case from another, using precedents and stare decisis to guide her thinking. I was awed.

    My hand was in the air about half the time, and when called on, my answers were meh.

    Clarence’s hand was never in the air. I don’t recall him saying anything, ever.

    Bill was never in class.

    Only one of us now sits on the Supreme Court. By all accounts, he and four of his colleagues — all appointed by Republican presidents, three by a president who instigated a coup against the United States — are getting ready to violate stare decisis, judicial precedent. I don’t expect them to give a clear and convincing argument for why. Do you?
    Click to expand...

    Yes, he and many other people (lawyers/judicial scholars) think that Roe is about to be overturned. It's like the table has been set and the main course is about to be served on December 1. They're going to eat it up and give us a bunch of diarrhea as to why it was the right thing to do.
     
    insidejob said:
    Check this here out. Came from an email newsletter I got by Robert Reich.



    Yes, he and many other people (lawyers/judicial scholars) think that Roe is about to be overturned. It's like the table has been set and the main course is about to be served on December 1. They're going to eat it up and give us a bunch of diarrhea as to why it was the right thing to do.
    Click to expand...

    Looks like there will be a significant bump in México's healthcare tourism in 2022.
     
    insidejob said:
    Check this here out. Came from an email newsletter I got by Robert Reich.



    Yes, he and many other people (lawyers/judicial scholars) think that Roe is about to be overturned. It's like the table has been set and the main course is about to be served on December 1. They're going to eat it up and give us a bunch of diarrhea as to why it was the right thing to do.
    Click to expand...
    Can you say blue wave after that happens? This is going to go from the gift that always keeps on giving at the polls with the republicans to the be careful of what you wanted as now you have to deal with it.
     
    Goatman saint said:
    Can you say blue wave after that happens? This is going to go from the gift that always keeps on giving at the polls with the republicans to the be careful of what you wanted as now you have to deal with it.
    Click to expand...
    I agree there will likely be substantial fallout after it happens. That's one of the plethora of reasons they're preemptively re-writing voting laws on the state level all across the country right now. And one of the reasons they're still sowing the seeds of doubt about election integrity across the country as well. Add those two things to a supreme court with a far right agenda and Trump's defeat never could have happened. Sure, he lost by 8 million votes nationwide but only by thousands in a combined 5 states. If they'd worked this kind of ground game before the 2020 election, he'd probably still be in office and the American Experiment would literally be dead.

    But it was the opposite. Stacy Abrams and her crew were the ones working the ground game by registering people who never had before and convincing them that their vote counts. By fighting in courthouses across the country to have ex-felons' voting rights restored (which shouldn't have had to happen in the first place - you get the right to own a gun back 10 years after completing your sentence, no papers to file or registration necessary).

    With what the state level GOP is doing in legislatures in, yeah, I'll say it just like Trump did, shirt hole states from coast to coast, it's going to be the "most important election of our lives" every four forking years because of how they're stacking the deck in the favor of the ever-dwindling GOP's favor to retain power even when white men becoming a minority is long in the rear view mirror.

    Living in THE blue city in a red state is the worst feeling possible, politically, at least.

    And, oh yeah, I would have two of the most forked up twenty something year old kids right now if Roe were overturned before I was a teenager. I imagine blue waves aren't all that comforting to those who will be forced to allow parasites to become full grown babies inside of them and be forced to give them up for an adoption that no pro-forking-lifer actually cares about. They only care while it's in the womb. After that...psssh.
     
    It’s odd how often pro lifers are also anti birth control and sex Ed two things that would reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place
    ==================

    …….What is striking about the Florida GOP’s latest attack on abortion rights — “fetal heartbeat” bills have been tried before — is how little interest these Republicans take in trying to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions.


    Adoption, Republicans’ long-preferred solution, is wonderful. But relying on adoption is also profoundly unrealistic. Given the choice between terminating a pregnancy or going through almost 10 months of pregnancy and then giving up the child, women will typically choose the former. And, in any case, not enough people want to adopt. Florida is no exception.


    Women could be spared the painful choice between terminating an unwanted pregnancy or surrendering their babies by making birth control more accessible and affordable, and by ensuring that young people are better-educated about sex and its possible repercussions.


    So I was puzzled this summer when Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, chose not to reduce abortions by making contraception more readily available in the state. DeSantis vetoed a bipartisan bill in June that would have provided $2 million to help low-income women gain access to long-acting reversible contraception, such as IUDs and hormonal implants.

    Those forms of contraception are considered especially effective because they are less vulnerable to human error…..

    DeSantis also worked against reducing abortions in Florida this year by signing into law a bill that weakened an increasingly anemic sex education program in schools. Local school boards in Florida already have almost full control over how sex ed is taught in districts.

    The only state requirement is instruction on the benefits of abstinence. Now, under the new law, parents can choose to opt out of having their children receive any sex education at all.
Opponents to sex education argue that it is the job of parents to talk to their children about sex.

    But many don’t, or they do it reluctantly or sparingly, maybe even clumsily or misleadingly. (I know many mothers who have yet to talk to their children about online pornography, which is ubiquitous and has warped the sexual expectations of mostly young men and boys but also young women.)…….

     
    Interesting point about religious exemptions

    Article could go here or on Covid thread
    =============

    Religious exemptions make no sense to me.
These escape clauses from our civic compact allow people to claim that such-and-such a law does not apply to them since it conflicts with their “sincerely held religious belief.”


    A person can claim a religious exemption to the equal opportunity clause that’s required in all federal contracts; to the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act; and, in some states, to the requirement that a child be immunized to attend public school.


    This seems crazy.

    Obviously not everyone agrees with every law, but that’s the bummer about living in a society. In a democracy, if you feel strongly enough, you can set about finding like-minded people and try to change the law.

    Or, if that doesn’t work, and you truly believe it’s a sin to, say, fill contraceptive prescriptions, then (a) don’t be a pharmacist or (b) risk getting fired. Wouldn’t God appreciate the gesture?

    If your religion won’t let you get vaccinated against the coronavirus, then don’t get the shot, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.


    If your God-given anti-mask beliefs are sincerely held, then they’ll carry you through trying moments such as homeschooling your child and driving from Miami to Houston instead of flying. Martyrdom is supposed to be hard!


    But ever since the Texas abortion ban went into effect, I’ve been rethinking exemptions. Maybe we actually need more of them.


    If religious people can opt out of secular laws they find sinful, then maybe the rest of us should be able to opt out of religious laws we find immoral.

    That’s right: immoral. We act as if religious people are the only ones who follow a moral compass and the rest of us just wander around like sheep in search of avocado toast. But you don’t need to believe in God or particular religious tenets to have a strong sense of right and wrong……..

     
    I know Clarence Thomas had said political things. Do you remember any specifics? Because I don’t think I’ve paid close attention in the past. It seems to me to be getting worse, but like I said I really wasn’t keyed in before.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom