That is all.
Well, not all.
There are a lot of "judge-made" rights out there that have come about since the 18th Century. For example, the right to not have a confession beaten out of you by the cops (the Supremes outlawed the "third degree" in the 1930s). The right to be informed of your rights. The right to engage in private sex acts with your spouse. The right to marry someone outside of your racial classification.
Someone else pointed out that in the 19th Century, a Black man who looked directly at a white woman in parts of this country, let alone dating or marrying her, would have found himself dangling by the neck from a tree.
One thing is clear: The Supreme Court has been captured by a far-right cabal. They are not deciding based on the law or the facts, but on their ideology, an ideology that is not very far removed from the Dark Ages. Their goal is to have a nation where men are on top, women are in the kitchen, gays are in the closet and those people know their places.
When They Have Beef With Your Menu
1 hour ago
14 comments:
Thomas has said he wants to overturn Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, but has been thus far been silent about Loving...
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Credit where credit is due. Mitch McConnell, holding open the last appointment from Obama because it was an election year, and then violating everything he had once claimed to be vital in replacing RBG with Covid Barrett least gets an assist.
Also blame RBG ego. She should have retired under Obama if she actually cared about her legacy. Fuck her.
All that is true enough. But it was Collins's gullibility, in the face of warnings about what she was doing, that brought this about.
A separate question is whether or not any of the Gang of Three can be charged with lying to Congress during their confirmation hearings. Since that will never happen, I'm not going to invest any more consideration of the point.
I don't think Collins was gullible. She knew what she was getting, and liked it. She just needed some verbal BS to give her some moderately plausible deniability.
The south rises again. Damn. I never thought I'd see them grab authority again like this.
w3ski
Another remedy, though hard to do: Impeach the fuckers. A majority in the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and they're gone.
Collins is a goddamn Republican, no more, no less. All of her moderate claims are an attempt to shield her from the social and political consequences of being a goddamn Republican.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
The overturn of Roe v. Wade was actually brought to you by the Constitution.
That's what they say, OldNFO, but saying it does not make it true. These birds are stuck in the 18th-19th Centuries.
(It's funny how the 2A applies to modern firearms, but the rest of the Constitution doesn't apply to modern society.)
But what is clear, at least to me, is that the current cabal on the Court is wedded to a Christianist far-right ideology and they will do their level best to twist the Constitution to suit their view of morality.
The tyranny of a minority, imposed on the majority. There's an Amendment for that.
Just got off the plane, haven't gotten thoroughly caught up, but I've noted several quotes, Max Boot and others (not exactly "lib-er-als"), over at Digby's house that are saying pretty much the same thing. The first part, danced around the edges of the next and are knocking back shots of courage working themselves up to number three.
There's flip side to the Big Lie: The Big Truth. Over and over and over again.
Till it sinks in ...
Old NFO, the principle of stare decisis says that new Court rulings should be supported by previous court rulings unless there is new law that says otherwise. This is how courts maintain their consistency and legitimacy over time. The correct way to overturn Roe v. Wade would have been to have a steady set of rulings based upon previous rulings that chipped away at Roe v. Wade until it no longer existed, rather than simply like a bold of lightning state that their previous decision was null and void.
Furthermore, the 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It is well within the power of the Supreme Court to identify other rights retained by the people, such as a right to privacy or a right to bodily autonomy, so there was no Constitutional reason why Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional.
The Christian Taliban right wing jihadists who have taken over the Supreme Court don't care about the 9th Amendment or, really, any amendment other than the 2nd Amendment, which they hold important because they think that as the most vicious and well armed people in America, they will naturally come out on top if there is another civil war, so they want to make sure they have plenty of guns to use to kill those pesky liberals, gays, uppity negros, and so forth. They actually talk about doing this on their forums and message boards. They don't care about stare decisis either, because maintaining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is of supreme disinterest to them. After all, the Supreme Court in the past has been used to protect the rights of liberals, gays, uppity negros, and so forth, so why *not* burn it down?
This is where we find ourselves right now -- with one of three branches of government owned by right wing jihadists who want to do everything possible to burn it all down.
Funny how y'all bring up "Privacy"...yet you wanted everyone to show a vaccine status when the hysteria about Covid was at it's peak...
Privacy matters, or it doesn't. Which is it?
Pregnancy is not something you get from airborne transmission, B.
Surely you’re not so dense as to not understand that distinction.
CM, you can't stop there. You have to explain the rest of the birds and bees to B.
Post a Comment