Jump to content

US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, that just isn't true.  It's pretty founded when 5 justices refused to intervene with a law that explicitly (and drastically) violates Casey in terms of a right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability.  Now, will those justices actually gut Casey?  That very much remains to be seen.  But this ruling certainly makes it appear very likely they'll either gut it or simply won't grant cert to a case that challenges these types of laws that effectively end the right to abortion in red states.

Injunctive relief is legally strange.  It is unusual for a court to grant injunctive relief even when there is cause.  This doesn’t preclude a lower court from taking action when the law is enforced.  

I absolutely admit, and the dissents point out, the majority is being cowardly.  when this case comes again and it is heard on the merits the five member majority will not have a procedural dodge.

Claiming this is the death of “Casey” is incredibly premature.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

I'm not calling for "civility", that may be your own strawman/perception/whatever. Biden may have said that in his address, but I think I may not have. What I advocate is dialogue and common-humanity approach where approriate. Would civility help with that? Perhaps.

Please apply this logic to a trans individual using the methods you've described when dealing with an out of touch transphobic individual on the right, which is basically most people on the right these days. 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure there is.  There's certainly a sliding scale of extremism between, say, the WSJ and Breitbart.  But who's actually more "evil" is a judgment I'm not comfortable making - the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes or the people that relied upon, exploited, enabled, and are responsible for the political emergence (or I suppose resurgence) of the crazy fascistic uneducated xenophobes?

It's a difficult question indeed and I've said before I'm not entirely certain what the answer is. I guess if I had to choose it would be the actor who knew they were trafficking in hate to make a buck while understanding what they were doing was evil. Tucker Carlson really blurs the lines between the two.

Unrelated, one of the small joys in life is listening to the radio (or in this case random play on YouTube) and hoping that a song comes on next and then it does.

 

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the five Judges you refer to are purely “unreasonable” why isn’t Trump President and why is homosexual marriage still legal in the United States?  This sucks and I disagree with the Majority Holding.  To assume they will gut “Casey” is unfounded.

Let's drop "homosexual marriage" from your vernacular for starters. And the SC couldn't overturn the election without inviting it's own destruction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

when this case comes again and it is heard on the merits the five member majority will not have a procedural dodge.

Claiming this is the death of “Casey” is incredibly premature.

Again, who says SCOTUS will hear any case challenging the law on its merits?  They can continue to procedurally dodge via negative agenda control.  It's possible you're right and that one of the five would flip if a case arises on its merits.  But you're being incredibly naive if you think their refusal to step in immediately isn't a clear signal that it's very likely that bloc of justices will either gut Casey or permit red states to enact laws that effectively do so within their jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please apply this logic to a trans individual using the methods you've described when dealing with an out of touch transphobic individual on the right, which is basically most people on the right these days. 

It's a difficult question indeed and I've said before I'm not entirely certain what the answer is. I guess if I had to choose it would be the actor who knew they were trafficking in hate to make a buck while understanding what they were doing was evil. Tucker Carlson really blurs the lines between the two.

Unrelated, one of the small joys in life is listening to the radio (or in this case random play on YouTube) and hoping that a song comes on next and then it does.

 

Let's drop "homosexual marriage" from your vernacular for starters. And the SC couldn't overturn the election without inviting it's own destruction. 

Marriage equality then.  If this court is so dead set in favor of the Trumpanista agenda why is marriage equality still the law of the land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, who says SCOTUS will hear any case challenging the law on its merits?  They can continue to procedurally dodge via negative agenda control.  It's possible you're right and that one of the five would flip if a case arises on its merits.  But you're being incredibly naive if you think their refusal to step in immediately isn't a clear signal that it's very likely that bloc of justices will either gut Casey or permit red states to enact laws that effectively do so within their jurisdiction.

It’s not good.  That is a fact.  But Alito noting in his own dodge that there are serious Constitutional problems with the Texas law suggests to me that he knows he doesn’t have 7 justices willing to dodge (it only takes 4 for a case to be heard) much less a majority to uphold the law’s Constitutionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But Alito noting in his own dodge that there are serious Constitutional problems with the Texas law suggests to me that he knows he doesn’t have 7 justices willing to dodge (it only takes 4 for a case to be heard) much less a majority to uphold the law’s Constitutionality.

Again, it's a clear signal those five will gut Casey if a case is granted cert.  Which gives Roberts and the liberals little motivation to grant cert if they're just going to lose.  Especially Roberts, he's not going to want to take a case that makes him look that weak - and would hurt the legitimacy of the court which is clearly his overarching concern.  Also, it would only take 6 justices to block cert, not 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it's a clear signal those five will gut Casey if a case is granted cert.  Which gives Roberts and the liberals little motivation to grant cert if they're just going to lose.  Especially Roberts, he's not going to want to take a case that makes him look that weak - and would hurt the legitimacy of the court which is clearly his overarching concern.  Also, it would only take 6 justices to block cert, not 7.

Actually, I think this particular law is probably toast, but it will be toast on grounds that have nothing to do with the the right of a woman’s choice, and the opinion will be an instruction manual as to what COULD work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

the opinion will be an instruction manual as to what COULD work.  

Seems pretty clear we're passed the point of judicial guidance on how to frame the proper legislation (plus, of course, SB8 is specifically designed to evade judicial review).  Especially considering the court already appears primed to overturn such precedent by taking on Dobbs v. Jackson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It takes 4 Justices to grant Certiorari not 5.

.....I'm aware.  You do realize there's only 9 justices, right?  So if 6 vote against, that means only 3 would vote for - hence, it only takes 6 to block granting cert, not 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters not at all to that stupid fetal heartbeat criteria that the SC is upholding that there is no fetus at 6 weeks, that it is the start of a clump of cells about the size of a grain of rice, and thus an embryo, not a fetus, and thus impossible of having a heart, much less a heartbeat

This is what we get when hysterical men run around telling women what they can and can't do -- their ignorance of reproduction, even among the so-called political class -- is worse than shocking.  But they don't care.  They declare and decree and that's what is what.  Even when it's wrong.  Even when it comes to telling their voters to shove horse deworming medication up their arses and going blind instead of getting a vaccination.

Why yes, let us have measured, polite, respectful, rational discussion with Their Ilks about these matters.  But why waste one's own precious time doing so when all the measured, polite, respectful, rationality is on our side, while they shoot and imprison. Also, when the greater objective of this law is to overturn every federal law by anyone in any state.

Just think of how much time and money would stop being squandered if men would just stop trying to force control over women's bodies.  Just think of how much time and treasure has been already squandered in the courts from local to federal over demanding control over women's bodies, instead of women having control of their own bodies, and lordessa, how very much more is going down that toilet hole in the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came across this older video of Sam Seder discussing a Jordan Peterson appearance on Real Time. It addresses these appeals to Democrats to undertand/ talk to/ etc. trumpists, and where they come from, quite nicely, I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Speaking of older videos....

 

Real talk, do you know Sexy Rexy as just a meme lord, or for the fact he outplayed Jordan in a playoff game? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute little ditty:

"Is that why Papa called Tucker Carlson a stupid dickhead?"

"Young man, you know you're forbidden to use those words. Tucker nd Carlson.

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

A Supreme Court that would rule the bounty law constitutional would most definitely have the bad faith to strike down a blue state version. 

Yup, most certainly would - at least six votes against anything resembling this horseshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The conservatives who could be appealed  to have politically nullified within the America in high office.

The conservative base has largely supported the anti-democratic trends.

It’d be nice if the concept of liberal democracy was still respected by the majority Republican Party. 
That  emotional appeals like cops describing their terrror at being nearly over ran by a anti-democratic mob was effective.

If you think there's no common ground to be found, well, then you do. I wouldn't be so willing to write them all off, but that's me.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And I think it need be acknowledged that that sometimes, no you’re not going to make much progress by appealing to your enemies’ heart and that it is a waste of time and resources to do so. 

At certain point implying that they’re approval on certain matters is integral may simply impede your agenda.

Dialogue between competing factions should be done with the idea something tangible could be gained.

You seem to be thinking of working with the Republican politicians, like McConnell. That was never my point. The reply that prompted this all spoke of polarization of society to such a degree that it cannot function, something I agreed with. That's why the Republicans matter, and that's why I've advocated for an approach reaching unity. Of course you don't need them to win elections and then implement your agenda, if that's your only goal.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again the democrats do not republican support for much of their agenda if they unified.

The few moderates who’ve adopted a more empathic, bipartisanship approach to republicans, have failed to recognize what the party’s ambitions intel. The end of the Democracy to which they hold political power in.

Its not hyperbolic; multiple gop senatores and Trump himself have explicitly derided the concept of Democracy as repugnant with no major backlash from their party.

Uh, I don't think trying to reach for conservatives automatically needs to mean advancing authoritarian agenda.

19 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Vaguely this seems uncontroversial if one doesn’t get into the positions in question as well what compassion within reason entails.

Like asking is it good to give to charity to help a cause really important to millions of people.

The person being asked is pressured to say yes even if the charity in question is for trying to bankroll a politician who says they’d work to end liberal democracy if elected.

The "reason" would be their own.

Otherwise, if this discussion serves a purpose, it has crossed my mind that you might be trying the approach I suggested on me. What you seem to be doing is to prod me realize the reality of the situation over there. If so, thanks for your patience and effort.

Anyway, my point remains the same as it has been since the first reply. Should you deem the approach I suggested ineffective, well, I don't regret putting it out there. I think it holds some value.

Edited by TsarGrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Can Democrats Do to Fight Texas’s Abortion Ban? Lots.

The only question is how far Democrats are willing to go to defend women’s rights.

No matter what fresh lawlessness Republicans commit, or what their legal enablers on the Supreme Court do to support that agenda, you can count on some Democrat or liberal-adjacent person saying, “But what can the Democrats do?” Never mind that Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the entire Executive Branch. They walk around every day like a defeated minority unable to stop Republicans—who lost—from having their way with our country.

There are countless examples of this sad-sack attitude from the last six months. (See: Republican congresspeople giving aid and comfort to white domestic terrorists, and Democrats doing nothing. See also: the GOP passing laws to suppress the right to vote, and Democrats doing nothing.) But let’s pause for a moment to consider the most recent example. (...)

But there is something Democrats can do. They can work around the Texas anti-abortion law. To do this, however, they will need to get creative to protect women’s rights. They will need to be willing to challenge “norms.” They will need to act like Republicans. (...)

So don’t ask me what the Democrats can do, because they can do a lot. The only question is what the Democrats are willing to do. What they are prepared to do. What they are ready to risk doing to uphold and defend their principles.

The answer better not be “nothing.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/texas-abortion-fight/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...