In his opinion in Dobbs, Sam Alito took great pains to say that nothing in it threatened any other rights. This was primarily because abortion kills an unborn child, which makes it unique.
Clarence Thomas disagreed, but he's always disagreed and no one joined him. So the question is, was Alito sincere, or was it merely a fiction he made up to make his opinion more palatable?
Progressives, needless to say, are convinced that conservatives on the Supreme Court are ready to begin striking down rights en masse, and I can hardly blame them for thinking so. But the best way to think about this is not speculation, but examination of actual conservative activism over the past few decades:
- They have spent the past 40 years loudly and unanimously opposed to abortion.
- The have also been unanimously in support of gun rights.
- And cutting taxes, especially for the rich.
- And suppressing Black voting because Black voters mostly support Democrats.
- And (a little less loudly and unanimously) opposing restrictions on campaign funding.
This makes both Dobbs and red state restrictions on abortion unsurprising. It makes Heller and the recent gun case, as well as red state laws on gun ownership, unsurprising. It makes the 2017 tax act unsurprising. It makes Shelby unsurprising. And it makes Citizens United unsurprising.
So what about the rights that liberals are concerned about?
- Republicans have not spent the past 40 years fighting contraception laws.
- Nor fighting interracial marriage.
- Nor, more recently, of fighting same-sex marriage, though they did fight it before Obergefell.
For this reason, I doubt that the Court will take on Griswold or Loving. The Supreme Court has always been sensitive to public opinion, and overturning these cases would simply be too much of a disaster.
Same-sex marriage is not on such sure footing. Its protection is more recent, for one thing, and although it was accepted remarkably quickly, there's still a lot of opposition to it among social conservatives. I'm not at all sure that the conservative justices have much motivation to take it on, but it's true that sending it back to the states would fit well with the reasoning in Dobbs.
Generally speaking, I'm more concerned with yet more action on the top list, not new activity on the bottom list. As usual, though, I could be wrong. The current set of conservative justices is a real shitshow.
What will the Supreme Court do next?
Significantly weaken the administrative state.
I fear you're right.
but not cost plus military contracts...
What dispute regarding cost plus military contracts is heading for the Supreme Court?
Indeed! Particularly if by "next" Kevin means "this morning." By all rights, SCOTUS should have never taken WV v. EPA, since there is no actual climate rule being challenged and thus there is neither case nor controversy for the Court to decide, but that's not how the Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch-Beerman-Barrett star chamber wants to do business.
Update: I guess "this morning" now means "tomorrow," as SCOTUS can change not only 50-year precedents but their opinion revealing calendars on a whim.
So it's bad to change 50 year old precedents?
I guess you think Brown vs Board of Ed was wrongly decided.
Exactly right. That's what the Federalist Society was really set up for and has been conditioning these Justices to do.
I wonder if favorite of this blog, Elizabeth Warren, is proud of them today, somewhere in her cold, black, racially-ambiguous heart.
You got it in one. That's always ever been what it's all about. It galls those who deem the rest of us their inferiors that there is something so crass as a federal government answering to the people that can bring them to heel with a mere twitch of its fingers should it desire to do so.
You are correct. Looks like we will be heading back to the 60s with horrible air and water pollution.
The thing people seem to miss about the right, ah, now, 2/3rds, of the court, is the rightward march over time.
Thomas has been the outlier here, but Republicans have been making a consistent, long-term push to the right with their nominations. Kennedy made that super obvious, but he's gone, replaced by another, much more right-wing justice.
So after asking whether Alito is sincere, you need to wonder about who's next. At some point, a Republican will appoint someone else, and they're likely to make Roberts look like a bleeding heart.
One thing I'd like Congress to do is to pass a law coercing/incentivizing states to remove old Jim Crow laws that are still on the books everywhere.
If you're going to do the culture war correctly, make conservatives fight for Jim Crow laws, amirite?
or they'll just spread to more red states...
Great idea. States have sometimes gone through their codes and purged whole bunches of obsolete and obscure provisions but you still see sites and twitter threads on really strange provisions that are still on the books. Plus the Jim Crow provisions (which may still exist in state constitutions too, come to think of it). Maybe DOJ can set up a project to have states evaluate anything more than 50 years old, in tribute to SCOTUS trashing a 50-year precedent?
Our last governor - before the ambitious hedge-fund millionaire who started his very own church & claimed to be a uniter while boasting that "the future is ours, not theirs" - had a search conducted to scrub vestiges of Virginia's racist heritage from legal verbiage & laws.
For a man who began his administration with some baggage, Northam exemplified an earnest desire to make improvements.
And now we have a sly guy who wouldn't answer about his views on abortion until after he was installed AND after SCOTUS overturned Roe. So far, he has done little but ignore the 1971 state constitution & some of Virginia's legislative niceties , preferring rudeness to Democratic legislators. Youngkin was aiming for the White House from the beginning & is starting to show it in his travels & speeches.
May he fly as close to the Oval Office Sun as fellow Commonwealth Governor Mark Warner.
What Jim Crow laws are you referring to? Not trolling, just curious. I know there are sometimes antiquated laws that are technically still on the books (things like, it's illegal to eat ice cream outside on a weekday) but are not enforced. Wasn't sure if these Jim crow laws you mention fall into this category or if they are having current impacts.
As we've seen with old abortion laws that were previously mooted, they can be unmooted. Sodomy laws, too, should be removed now.
And with that, I give you Ken Paxton...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/
I notice that someone has countered that schools have become desegregated due to
Slip of the finger- was going to day that it's a matter of class/elitism in some cases - charter schools with AP classes, not just private & parochial ones - but in less affluent areas, it is still/again a problem, which I believe is often more if a matter or segregation resulting from neighborhoods where more people of color with low incomes live & school budgets are affected.
But now I find that this was not posted where intended, maybe due to finger slip - sorry
If the SCOTUS overturns the precedent on gay marriage it will prove that the court is willing to do exactly what it did when it overturned Roe: ignore public opinion and the shitshow that would follow the decision. For that reason, I am fairly certain they will do it.
Yes, they are acting as if paying any attention to the will will of the majority would be caving to the great unwashed, the heathens to whom they are superior. Here we have Democratic president, but a Supreme Court that's behaving as if starting a civil war wouldn't be unthinkable.
Are you suggesting that the Justices should violate their oaths and rule based on public opinion rather than the law?
They already perjured themselves before Congress, so why not?
I challenge you to point to any specific statement any of them made to Congress that was a lie.
These guys are all very experienced lawyers. They know how to say one thing while sounding like they said another, to avoid answering a question while making it sound like they answered it, and how not to commit perjury.
Conservatives very much support (Christian) prayer in school led by school officials and other things supporting (Christian) religion including taxpayer funding and the right to discriminate based on religion. I expect much more along these lines.
That's my guess as well, the church-state separation is genuinely under fire.
Dems have a once in a generation opportunity to destroy the Republican brand and they should not let it pass. Religious and reproductive freedoms are under attack and I'd bet a tidy sum that gender expression shows up a big time in 2024.
So, here's my question about the church/state separation issue. I realize that what I'm about to say depends upon a certain level of intellectual integrity on the part of the current Supreme Court majority, so it probably doesn't have any real world applications, but I'm going to lay it out anyway.
In Kennedy v Bremerton School District, the USSC ruled, last week, that Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment requires that a public school district allow its employees to express their religious beliefs even while they are on the clock as public employees. A lot of us have a religious belief that requires us to express tolerance and inclusion for everyone, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. So, didn't the Supreme Court majority just declare that Florida's Don't Say Gay bill is unconstitutional?
I think the difference is that "Don't Say Gay" applies only to speech as part of the job, while in Kennedy it was indisputed that the speech was not part of the job, even though it was on the job.
It's the difference between being openly gay (including at work) and talking about homosexuality as part of a class.
That is not how the laws are being applied. Teachers are being fired for being open about their marriages.
When I was in school I was aware that my female teachers were Miss, Mrs, or occasionally Ms. I had no idea which Ms's were married unless they got pregnant and no idea which male teachers were married or single.
Why would a teacher be discussing his/her marriage or spouse with a bunch of school children?
Unmarried women didn't get pregnant when you were young?
I'm sure it happened. As kids we mostly were not aware of it.
I would guess that if a pregnant teacher was unmarried there would have been gossip and we would have heard about it. I do not know for certain that all of the teachers who got pregnant were married.
I think you are making my point for me.
You lost me at "depends upon a certain level of intellectual integrity" because this SCOTUS has none so everything after that is irrelevant.
And I'm recalling when my best friend & I refused to insert "under God" in the daily pledge of allegiance.
Alito probably is sincere in his personal belief that abortion is different, but nothing in the Constitution says that. The court's position on unenumerated rights may haunt us for many years to come.
Alito et al may be sincere, but that is because they are brainwashed fools. I remember that in the Hobby Lobby decision they said with a straight face that birth control is very, very different from other healthcare needs. Only a Catholic could say that with a straight face.
New Rules for the Supreme Court:
1. Only one non-Hispanic Catholic allowed.
2. Only one justice who ever attended any Ivy League college allowed.
3. Only one justice from the Northeast allowed.
4. At least one justice has to have served in the military at the rank of captain or below.
5. At least one justice has to have spent at least ten years as a criminal defense attorney.
6. At least one justice has to have held an elective political office.
7. At least one justice has to have been from the west coast, one from the Midwest, one from the Southwest, one from the South, and one from the Northeast. Probably we should have one from either Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Indian Nations or the territories.
8. At least one justice needs to be able to play the guitar or saxophone.
And one has to be 20 and one 95.
A court of the people? I like it - but let's hope that William Jefferson Clinton won't come out of retirement to be the saxophonist.
Pete Buttigieg ticks the Midwest & military marks, plus Ivy League, so eight others can fill out the various other requisites, & a coupla extras.
Yes, but his very existence ticks off the rightwing & their senators, so his confirmation hearing could be worse than Jackson's.
I mostly agree with this.
However US constitutional law is full of balancing tests. An alleged human life presumably weighs heavily. But this would apply equally to any other case where lives are allegedly or possibly at stake.
Kevin: "The Supreme Court has always been sensitive to public opinion, and overturning these cases would simply be too much of a disaster."
Oookay, sure.
Oh, there just getting started...
Pulling cases that are moot so they can overturn precedent...yeah
Grossly mis-representing the actual facts of the case to get their desired results...
At best, ahistorical analyses to support the outcome they want...checked too....
This is just the warm up.
Conservatives will not go after Griswold directly. They will deem using IUDs and emergency contraceptive pills the same as abortions. SCOTUS will give them that. They will drive up the demand for abortions though.
Another thing being teed up by anti-abortion forces is re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. No such procedure exists but it will scare doctors and hospitals: https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/new-ohio-bill-falsely-suggests-that-reimplantation-of-ectopic-pregnancy-is-possible/.
I think you're right about Griswold. There's mythology about birth control pills as well, and it's long been a thing among evangelicals. For that reason, I think it'll be treated the same as abortion.
The ectopic pregnancy thing is not going to make it into law or to SCOTUS. That's just nonsense for the base. It's virtue signalling showing how serious the particular anti-abortion politician is who sponsored it, but it's exactly the kind of thing that the party does not want to actually end up as law.
I agree that a law which forces doctors into a procedure that is not medically sound will not occur because too few lawmakers support it. Fear of legal action, though, might cause doctors and hospitals to delay or send a patient somewhere else.
The Irish zealots got there first when they killed a Hindoo to stop an abortion, & now Ireland has legal abortion.
Because SCOTUS doesn't technically create cases but only decides which ones to accept, IMO you have to look at what the most activist and best-funded reactionary nutball foundations are trying to develop cases on, and that's likely to be what the best-funded and most nutball reactionary activists are talking about among themselves. My imagination isn't vivid enough to give me a clue what these are, just that they're probably worse than I could possibly imagine.
I agree that iamr4man is probably right about school prayer. It doesn't stem from the privacy penumbra line of cases but meshes with the Praying Coach one they just issued. And I think Dana Decker is right too-- they have their sights on the administrative state and going there can satisfy both major base factions on the right, corporate and antebellumist, or plessyist, or whatever to call cultural reactionaries.
I also think crispdavid is right about the unintended consequences of such a sweepingly open-ended opinion. It only takes 4 of them to grant cert and there are now potentially 4 to Alito's right. Up until Barrett, Alito was the key 4th vote; now it's potentially Kavanaugh. He may not have a lot of influence even if he tries to hold the line where his opinion draws it. Which I fundamentally doubt that he's sincere about.
Do they care about public opinion? Well, they seem to want respect *from* the public, but without giving us any real reason to grant it to them.
And have the Holy Five yet shown any sign of caring about real-world consequences of their decisions? That would be a minimal sign of respect for the public.
No. This has been your daily SATSQ.
Isn't that mostly the job of the other two branches?
The judiciary is supposed to interpret laws and regulations, not determine policy.
Alito is a smart guy. If he really wanted to overturn Roe without laying the foundation for overturning other precednets, he could have done so.
He attacked the legal underpinnings of the others decisions. He may not care about birth control, for example, but plenty of conservatives do. So, Mississippi, to take a state at random, outlaws birth control. Someone sues. The appellate Court looks at Dobbs, and says there's not fundamental right to privacy in these issues. Upholds the law. SCOTUS then either denies the case, and the appellate case stands, or grants review and has to figure out a reason why the theoretical underpinning of Dobbs doesn't apply to other privacy rights.
Roberts may be keen to avoid this argument, but the others will take it up.
Re: He may not care about birth control, for example, but plenty of conservatives do.
Where are these conservatives? I have yet to encounter one person, even in the vast world of the internet where loony-tunery abounds, who has said "Let's ban birth control". Even Trady Catholics while living that for themselves, do not go that far.
IMO, the posters above who note that the Court will next move against the administrative state, have it right. Alito and his friends just tossed a huge bone to the SoCon right, the biggest one they could have tossed, and one that will occupy that faction for a good long time now as the Court meanwhile gets back to the real reason the Federalist Society recommended most of those guys: making the world safe for corporate power uber alles.
Thomas has said he wants to overturn Griswald, Obergefell, and Lawrence. So that's one "conservative".
Have you read Alito's opinions? They are at high school or maybe junior high school debate club level. Now, he has clerks to do some legal research and (very much a)historical research to gussy up what amounts to an adolescents idea of a smart argument.
Good point. My guess is that Alito took on the underlying foundations of Roe because he didn't want to leave in place a foundation that could be used to give rights to trans people, or whatever oppressed group comes onto the left's radar after trans people. To a lot of conservatives, the culture wars look like one loss after another. They opposed racial equality and lost. They opposed equality between the sexes, and largely lost. They opposed equal rights for gay people, and lost. Few conservatives these days want to reverse Virgina v. Loving, which struck down a ban on interracial marriage, and a large number of them have even come to accept gay marriage, but they worry about what comes next.
we can take the conservative supremes at their word. it's not like they've ever lied about how they'd rule on a particular case.
I see more & more people saying Supremes. I don't want to say I started it, but every coinage, from "420", c. 1970, to "on fleek", in the later Obama years, started small.
"The Supreme Court has always been sensitive to public opinion, and overturning these cases would simply be too much of a disaster."
Can't believe you can say something like that right after they overrule the popular Roe v Wade.
This is not a supreme court that can be described or understood with "The Supreme Court has always been . . . "
What would it even mean to go after Loving? Race is a continuum. What would be the dividing line for illegal vs legal, the antiquated idea of being able to "pass"?
Are you aware of any group that is looking to overturn Loving? I'm 45 years old and in my adult life I've never heard of anyone really wanting to make interracial marriage illegal.
I’ve never heard of anyone openly saying that schools should be segregated either, but lots of schools have reverted back to being almost entirely all one race.
The original miscegenation laws came from somewhere and were supported by somebody. Those people (and their descendants) still exist among us, even if they know to keep their mouths shut on the topic.
I'm sure there are a small amount of crazies somewhere that think interracial marriage should be illegal. I know plenty of people who don't want their kids marrying outside their race but no one that this it should be illegal. But compare that to the pro-life movement where a sizeable portion of the electorate was very vocal about their opposition. Even opponents of gay marriage have been outspoken. (Although their numbers are becoming fewer.)
There's just no one around that is pushing for outlawing interracial marriage.
I agree with some others that say it would be totally consistent - not that this SCOTUS cares about consistency or anything - with Dobb's to send all of the issues Drum lists in this post back to the states. Now, I doubt few if any states would pass laws to ban interracial marriage or *all* forms of contraception (but I could see them ban anything they view as an abortifacient, which would, in fact, include a lot) so sending those back to the states likely won't do much harm. A *lot* of states, however, would immediately ban same sex marriage and even retroactively nullify existing ones.
Segregated schools are all about income segregation, not race segregation these days.
+1
Thank you for bringing up economic anxiety.
I see you still believe in the Green-Brown Coalition to save America, the Hawley-Gabbard administration to replace the Biden-Harris regime & restore the US to a pristine state of Orbanite grandeur.
Yes, indeedy - the antebellum contingent here in the south may not come out & say it, but if you could read their thoughts when you see the disapproval in their eyes in some areas of the state where I live, you'd know how deeply wrong their bibles tell them that "race mixing" is.
I didn't realize it still existed in the state's northern area until 2016.
At least one GOP Senator (Mike Braun) has publicly said the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down State laws banning interracial marriage, and that it should be up to the states to decide that.
Well, sort of. He was saying it would be hypocritical for the court to say some issues are decided federally and some by the states depending on if you support it or not. He then came back and clarified he's against racism, supports the right interracial marriage, etc.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was against interracial marriage. The only reason we're talking about it is because that opinion is such an outlier. No other other politician or activist group is calling for the repeal of Loving.
Richard Spencer & his Patriot Pride of Anti-Hebraic-Usurpation?
There are still those who use the "one drop" of blood as the standard. Fortunately, they're not empowered now, but they still exist.
In a nation of 320 million people you will find everything and anything that does not violate the laws of physics.
Elizabeth Warren's Blood Quantum thanks you.
The concept of race might be a continuum but the law's always had a dividing line. Louisiana, for example, had the infamous "one drop" rule. And, tragically but also rather ironically, mixed-race refugees from present day Haiti (some of whom were themselves slave owners) were sold into slavery when they arrived here seeking a place of safety. Power trumps all else.
https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/257/
You left out religion of both lists, and that's extremely high on this Court's list. They want to allow state funding to go to churches, more religious observance in our secular government, and to relax a whole host of laws, particularly anti-discrimination laws, under the guise of free exercise of religion.
They will also continue to be more deferential to the police, rolling back rights of suspects and defendants, forgiving police misconduct. This has been underway but will continue, which is going to make it even harder to reign in lawless police departments (hello, LA County.)
I think Obergefell is a goner. Their Christian base will demand it. Hey, it'll still be legal at the state level so who cares, right? I doubt they would go after Griswold, although I suppose they could for legal purity, figuring no one in their right minds would outlaw it. But they probably will ignore it.
The bottom line is that if you are a woman, a person of color, gay, trans, poor, an immigrant, an employee, or a victim of police misconduct, sexual harassment, discrimination, a victim of the powerful, life is going to continue to become more difficult and more dangerous over the next decade, and there's not a thing anybody is going to do about it.
But yeah, rubbers are pretty safe.*
(*As long as they aren't distributed to teenagers.)
“Hey, it'll still be legal at the state level so who cares, right?”
Involuntary dissolution of marriages nationwide would be a mess for courts to sort out, particularly in what happens to their kids, property, debt, and government benefits. Marriage certificates that are only valid in some states but not others creates the same mess described above but only whenever somebody moves, which in America is pretty often.
Doesn’t mean SCOTUS won’t do one or the other though.
Marriages contracted while they were legal will remain legal-- legsilative decrees cannot undo marriages. However if Oberfell falls states could refuse to enact any further SSN unions. The Court would have to rule on Full Faith and Credit as to whether marriages performed in other states would have to be recognized-- though the consequences allowing that would be catastrophic and I have to imagine the corporate elite would be strongly opposed and the Court would take note and require Full Faith and Credit.
I don't see any legal obstacle to undoing existing marriages since the very concept of marriage in a liberal state is a matter of legislative decree rather than a religious concept. If the state can create marriages, regulate them, and create a framework for the dissolution then the state must dissolve them wholesale.
You know what will also be a mess? Women getting access to healthcare. Destroying the ability of the federal government to regulate just about everything, but they are very likely going to do that. This SCOTUS doesn't care what kind of harm and chaos they create.
Please do not phrase the abortion debate as "women gaining access to healthcare" that is mendacious and hyperbolic.
And the federal government will be able to regulate what it pleases-- however the executive branch may not have any leeway to figure out applications where Congress failed to spell out every specific-- that is what is at stake (the Chevron precedent)
If the Surpremes dissolve samesex marriages in about 26 states, they will have their own moment to rival the chaos El Jefe unleashed at airports when he put travel restrictions in place at the start of the American phase of the Plandemic.
Ha. First get rid of the EPA. Then see what's possible. Marriage and contraception is deception for the rubes. Now, nixing all regulation, THAT calls for a martini.
I like how our corporate overlords just assume they don’t need regulation for their own livelihoods. Like getting rid of clean air regs - are they prepared for a future in which they’re breathing out of an oxygen tank everytime they step outside? Money solves a lot of problems, but sometimes it’s nice to just not have the problems in the first place.
What's the point of having big money if you can't see the little people suffering?
At least that's how so many of these pull-up-the-ladder-Jack types make it look.
We thought Children of Men was the future, because it was a better movie, but really, it's Elysium.
It's a solid, grounded prediction, but it's also of note that any reasoning that was applied to Roe/Casey could also be applied to any of those others, despite Alito saying he doesn't want to. The only difference between them is a religious belief.
Which is my way of saying, this is a political decision - far from "calling balls and strikes".
I guess no one is really willing to sacrifice anything for abortion rights. I think abortion should be available, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. The same goes for all these other things. It's not worth the effort anymore. The political system is broken beyond repair and voting isn't enough anymore. The extremists have won. Stay out of their way.
Bill O'Reilly was willing to sacrifice Tilller the Babykiller.
It looks like Lawrence versus Texas is next, and immediate. Ken Paxton (AG of Texas) stated that Texas will start enforcing the sodomy law that was overturned in Lawrence. This will setup the case so that the Court can rule on
If they overturn Lawrence, blue DAs should immediately announce they’ll be enforcing it on heterosexuals too. After all, several states (including Texas I believe) had sodomy laws that allegedly applied to everyone (which is why they argued unsuccessfully that the laws were “neutral” - oral and anal sex was prohibited for all couples, not just the gays). Bring the fight to the Republicans. Enforce the letter of the law. No more BJs or butt sex, hetero men. That should be super popular, given trends in heterosexual porn these days.
Callista Gingrich is happy for no ex post facto laws.
*Supreme Court* - all down to what Ginni *suggests* .
If you read the Court's opinion, it is clear that there are five votes for ruling against constitutional protections of same sex marriage, sex between people of the same sex, interracial marriage and contraception.
Now, interracial marriage may be on firmer footing, since Thomas is in such a marriage. And to do something there, the court would have to rule on defining interracial marriage. But everything else seems likely to be challenged if the court's composition doesn't change.
Thomas is such an asshole that really seems to hate all other black people that I wouldn’t be surprised if he overturns Loving… but also conveniently rules that all interracial marriages already performed are exempted from that overturning. He won’t worry about the hypocrisy… after all, Republicans are all about “rules for thee not for me.”
Unless it's rules about Covid restrictions. Then its the Dems who are all about “rules for thee not for me".
Fuck you troll.
So you disagree?
Don't feed the confederate troll; don't forget that this is also the dissembling piece of shite who categorically insists, always and forevermore, that the Slaver Rebellion was really all about Northern aggression.
Please provide any quote of mine that supports your assertion.
Challenge: State once and for all that the Slaver Rebellion was in point of fact the Slaver Rebellion. And categoricaly deny that this was ever about Northern agression.
Or state that you absolutely refuse to do so.
One position or the other; coy dissembling will not be tolerated. You can do that, right, troll?
I'm not a historian but, yes, I believe the biggest (by far) cause of the Civil War was the South's insistence on keeping slavery. They didn't want to be subjected to federal laws prohibiting or interfering with their right to own slaves.
I'm not sure what you are implying or what it is based on. I don't think I've ever used the term "northern aggression" unless maybe if I was quoting someone else.
Challenge: Produce the prior comments I have made that are driving your argument.
Not good enough, troll. Did you think no one would notice that you didn't say the Slavers started the war?
Say it, and say it with no caveats. Truly, your disrespect knows no bounds.
What do you mean by slavers? People that owned slaves? And what do you mean by "started the war"? The confederate attack on Ft. Sumter started the war. Off the top of my head, I have no idea who ordered the attack and if they owned slaves. I know Jefferson Davis owned slaves and I assume many/most of the confederate leaders did as well.
How and to whom am I being disrespectful. I think any unbiased observer of this conversation would certainly say you're the one being disrespectful
So you're not going to say the South started the war.
Game. Set. Match. Now FOAD, troll. It neve ceases to amaze me how people like you think you can get away with insulting a person's intelligence to their face. But there you have it.
Yes, of course the South started the war. Did you not read my last comment?
So you're not going to answer any of my questions or accept my challenge? Just going to spout off your nonsense and vitriol?
Reading these fever dreams, I have to ask...
Can anyone suggest a plausible path for a case on the legality of interracial marriage to come before the Supreme Court?
Kim Kardashian to severe KanYe's parental rights?
Doesn't work like that. Even if she claimed their marriage was invalid under some pre-Loving law that would not impact West's parental rights. Therefore, not a vehicle to overturn Loving.
The one I would consider probable is to shift the balance between anti-discrimination and freedom of association away from the "if money changes hands, freedom of association doesn't apply" and toward the Heart of Atlanta standard that only businesses critical to interstate travel are covered.
Lester Maddox is just axing questions.
Curious what people think the measurable impact of recent decisions is going to be.
- will US gun deaths go up or down? Gun sales? Will the changes affect you personally?
- will the US abortion rate change significantly?
I doubt making it easier to own a gun, which in turn will increase everyone encounters with guns in day-to-day life, will reduce gun deaths. There’s a reason why societies that have fewer guns in circulation have fewer gun deaths, and why no society is following our footsteps in making it easier to own guns. But we’ll refuse to acknowledge that logic until we have shootings every day in every possible venue I guess.
Legal abortions will go down, because there will be fewer places to obtain one. Actual abortions will probably not change much because women have always found a way to get rid of fetuses they don’t want. And women dying while pregnant or in childbirth will go up because hospitals can only offer lifesaving abortions in places where it’s legal, and the women facing an emergency may not have enough time to get to a hospital that can do it.
For the longest time I thought the SC based decisions on the law, silly, I know. Then I read Gorsuch on the praying football coach case and in the first sentence, he misrepresents the facts by stating the coach preyed quietly and personally after the game. This is a gross misrepresentation. Sotomayor takes him to task for it, but how could Gorsuch do that? Answer, he wants a certain outcome and writes it that way.
This goes back a long time. See Bush v. Gore.
"the coach preyed quietly"
I love this typo.
If he wasn't speaking in tongues, or God forbid ululating like some heathen Muslin, & even being at the fifty yardline, he was praying quietly.
He was also compelling his players to, but I am sure abstaining wouldn't have resulted in a hardnosed foobawl coach punishing players at practice or docking playing time.
I work in finance and many of the folks are openly Republican. I commented to a friend that 'the Supreme Court has lost a ton of creditability. This is horrible for the institution, and bad for the GOP.'
He said, 'Biden is at 38% and that is worst than Trump. How is the Supreme Court hurting the GOP?'
I did not have a quick retort....
This past week is exactly why many of us held our noses and voted for Trump.
Disrespectful Confederate troll lying yet again. FOAD, troll; can't even practice what is insisted to be Southern courtesy.
And what is it now that you think I'm lying about?
And how and to whom am I being disrespectful?
And why are you calling me a confederate? I'm from DC.
Oddly enough, it's also why so many of us held our noses and voted for Hillary.
So, you did vote twice for El Jefe.
I see that the "generic Congressional ballot" polls shifted from Republicans up by 3% before the Dobbs decision was released to Democrats up by 7% afterward.
Inshallah.
Late for this item, but I don't know which is worse in terms of SCOTUS actions, Thomas or Alito. Thomas accused liberals of having harmed him in some way for 43 years - when he was only 43! - so that tells us plenty, but this column by Courtland Milloy tells even more that I don't remember seeing before.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/28/justice-clarence-thomas-called-himself-a-termite/
A *lot* going on in that article-- thanks for the link!
My absolute fave moment, knowing that he's just voted to throw out a 50-year precedent that affirmed a core personal right and has told us he's itching to throw out several more, is where he says in May, "You cannot have a free society without a stable legal system."
This man's entire life is such compressed and interlocked irony there are just no words.
He's so scrambled mentally he people thinks the porno he watches is real & not scripted.
Griswold is the goal. Roe v. Wade was just the softest target among Griswold's progeny because "Won't someone think of the CHILDREN?" is a good rallying cry for the public.
Griswold created the right to privacy for private persons from state authority, especially in civil/family matters. As long as Griswold stands, there's a whole litany of things Republicans, especially evangelical Protestant Christians, can't use the state to force people to do.
Also, remember that no Republican nominee after Bork was open and honest with the Senate about their jurisprudence in any detail.
Now, you are correct that there are other higher targets for the Six Wizened Souls on SCOTUS. However, many other judges were put on the bench by the Federalist Society for swearing fealty to the Republican Platform first and the Constitution second. Alito et alia will take a hard whack at any post-1936 precedent that such a judge sends their way. The old days of a few high-profile cases was to avoid pissing off Sandy [O'Connor] and Tony [Kennedy], not because Thomas and Scalia and Rehnquist didn't want to smash anything and everything decides by Chief Justice Warren or Justices Brennan and Marshall.
I guess you have your answer: Destroy the ability of EPA to regulate GHG, put limits onto Indian sovereignty.
Pingback: Ohne Lehrkräfte können Abtreibungen in der Ukraine nur noch mit Maske und Leitungswasser vorgenommen werden - Vermischtes 04.07.2022 - Deliberation Daily