Big day for Evangelical rapists

[Dreadnaught]

And who is giving them the time off work for that kind of medical vacation? The time off from family and other obligations. All you're doing is supporting the well-off GOP in its push to preserve the freedom of abortion for them, who have available alternative options, and keeping it out of the hands of the poor, who don't and who are in an even worse position to support the results. And we all know you're not actually going to be willing to host many of those who aren't well off anyway. And where's the protection from prosecution afterwards?

You're listing reasons why abortion should be broadly accessible, which I agree with. But saying that I would only host someone who is well off is uncalled-for and inaccurate, considering we're also donating funds to pay for said travel. By definition the not-well-off would be the people connected with hosts, because — partly thanks to regulations and unions — it's difficult to find a place to stay in my abortion-friendly state.

That's the thing that 70% of Americans disagree with.

If that were the case, we could have added federal abortion protections long ago to harmonize this across the state. But it was a political hot potato, because abortion is a wedge issue.

To be honest I also still don't understand how you guys are using a system that relies on a constitution vague enough that centuries later there's still major discussion about what it means, then appoint political judges to decide on it, and those political appointments (for life, mind you) can just decide to overturn old decisions (which weren't even 5-4 close or anything) which were reaffirmed multiple times.. just to state they were all wrong?

They don't overturn past rulings often. And especially on "major" issues that get a lot of attention. Part of why this is such a big deal.

[Hazir]

To be honest I also still don't understand how you guys are using a system that relies on a constitution vague enough that centuries later there's still major discussion about what it means, then appoint political judges to decide on it, and those political appointments (for life, mind you) can just decide to overturn old decisions (which weren't even 5-4 close or anything) which were reaffirmed multiple times.. just to state they were all wrong?

We in Europe have a country that also rejects PR in its electoral system. It delivers similar shit results. Two party systems are the problem; especially in a country where they also distort the one person one vote principle.

And I will repeat; if you have a crap system like that the majority playing as if they are in a different dimension gets you the kind of minority rule they have.

And dread, are you fucking nuts? Do you seriously think that people should have rights taken away so that they can get them back for no other reason than proper procedure?

Really, if that is supposed to be political rational thinking in the USA, the suicide pact that you lot made out of the system can only make me hope we won't suffer from the nuclear fall out of your next Civil War.

[Aimless]

finally some good news:

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Interesting perspective:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/o...stitution.html

[Hazir]

Interesting perspective:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/o...stitution.html

For any of that to happen the majority in the USA should be willing to tear down a system that cements the tyranny of a conservative minority. I still don't see such willingness. Could be that they somehow think that the survival of the state is more important than what kind of country that state creates.

[Loki]

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vla...21577836937224

Now public school coaches can engage in religious behavior on public grounds. Another case that ignores decades of jurisprudence. We're dealing with the most radical court in many decades.

[Ominous Gamer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vla...21577836937224

Now public school coaches can engage in religious behavior on public grounds. Another case that ignores decades of jurisprudence. We're dealing with the most radical court in many decades.

If I'm remembering this correctly this all started cause of kids complaining about him pressuring them to join in the prayer. Seems like an easy path to get fired if he starts with that BS again.

[Aimless]

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/27/yes...udio-recording

As I've said before, Republicans are so repugnant that it's easy to forget they're also fucking morons.

[Aimless]

Untriggered:

https://www.nola.com/news/courts/art...657487884.html

[Steely Glint]

Then should be super easy for folks to vote in legislatures who will codify it in their state law, right?

Not in every state.

[Steely Glint]

If that were the case, we could have added federal abortion protections long ago to harmonize this across the state. But it was a political hot potato, because abortion is a wedge issue.

Obama fought an election (amongst other things) on doing this and then, like any good centrist, reneged as soon as he got power. Biden has done exactly the same thing. So the problem isn't 'abortion is too controversial' but 'the democrats do not actually do the things they say they'll do'.

[Lewkowski]

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vla...21577836937224

Now public school coaches can engage in religious behavior on public grounds. Another case that ignores decades of jurisprudence. We're dealing with the most radical court in many decades.

It was voluntary. If praying and allowing others to participate if they desire is a violation you really don't want to google how the Senate starts its sessions.

[Loki]

A representative of the state engaging in public prayer on public grounds and incentizing others to join him is quite obviously a violation of the establishment clause. It's how the Supreme Court ruled for decades and it's how lower courts rules in this case.

[Lewkowski]

A representative of the state engaging in public prayer on public grounds and incentizing others to join him is quite obviously a violation of the establishment clause. It's how the Supreme Court ruled for decades and it's how lower courts rules in this case.

Do you think the Senate violates the establishment clause when it opens in prayer?

Also what incentivization? You are imagining it happening as if the coach is going to penalize players for not doing it be the assumption that since he could he would. Absent proof of that, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Hazir]

Obama fought an election (amongst other things) on doing this and then, like any good centrist, reneged as soon as he got power. Biden has done exactly the same thing. So the problem isn't 'abortion is too controversial' but 'the democrats do not actually do the things they say they'll do'.

As said in the NYT today; the Democrat leadership isn't ready to accept that the system they have been a part of for most of their lives is falling apart, and don't have a beginning of a plan.

[Steely Glint]

Only now, at the end, do they understand.

[Loki]

Let's be honest here: if the Democrats pass a law legalizing abortion across the country, the Supreme Court will strike it down.

[Steely Glint]

If they strike it down then the political pressure to protect abortion federally will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.

[Loki]

They don't care. 5 of them are are fanatics with no regard for the institution of the Supreme Court or the rule of law.

[LittleFuzzy]

Let's be honest here: if the Democrats pass a law legalizing abortion across the country, the Supreme Court will strike it down.

In fairness, there would be a point to that. Forcing SCOTUS to strike it down will make it harder for SCOTUS to approve when a Republican Congress passes the law outlawing it. But they can't do it without removing cloture. And if the GOP and Court have any brains, they'll let it stand just long enough for their majority to pass their law revoking it and banning abortion federally, which 5 on the court will then approve.

[Steely Glint]

They don't care. 5 of them are are fanatics with no regard for the institution of the Supreme Court or the rule of law.

Which would give them more justification for doing stuff like expanding the court.

[Hazir]

In fairness, there would be a point to that. Forcing SCOTUS to strike it down will make it harder for SCOTUS to approve when a Republican Congress passes the law outlawing it. But they can't do it without removing cloture. And if the GOP and Court have any brains, they'll let it stand just long enough for their majority to pass their law revoking it and banning abortion federally, which 5 on the court will then approve.

You know that you are describing the end of your Republic?

[Hazir]

Which would give them more justification for doing stuff like expanding the court.

I doubt it. If Republicans flaunt legitimacy so blatantly, legalism isn't going to fix it.

[Steely Glint]

I doubt it. If Republicans flaunt legitimacy so blatantly, legalism isn't going to fix it.

What are they going to do about it?

[Loki]

They're not even pretending anymore:

Twitter Link

[Lewkowski]

That's not even a decision just a stay.

[Hazir]

What are they going to do about it?

How does one fix a failing state?

[Being]

Who'd a thunk...

While wood is generally considered to be the best material for hangers due to its sturdiness, almost all of the new orders have been for wire hangers — good news for a state that consistently ranks top five in U.S. steel production.

Texas’ economic growth attributed to sharp increase in hanger sales

[LittleFuzzy]

That's not even a decision just a stay.

Staying the matter until the current justiciable controversy has passed is a decision. It doesn't create precedent but haven't you been harping that precedent is meaningless anyway?

[Hazir]

Staying the matter until the current justiciable controversy has passed is a decision. It doesn't create precedent but haven't you been harping that precedent is meaningless anyway?

It's funny though that the conservative minority thinks that this legalism is going to hold. As if the majority is willfully going to subject themselves to an ideology they totally reject.

Just let's see what happens if the next minority president is inaugurated.