The Supremes

[O Really]

Rez abortions might be legal and unstoppable by the misogynists, but women could still be charged for traveling to them like for traveling to abortion-legal states.

I don't think they're going to be able to make that work. But if they do, I'm moving to Canada or Mexico for real.

[Vrede too]

"As an “originalist” does Clarence Thomas" think we should revisit:

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges...

There needs to be a test case.

Odd that it's the only one he didn't specify in his list of precedents that should be revisited.

That's weird, right?

Maybe he’s looking for an excuse to dump her.

Dan Rather
@DanRather

I’m curious: which companies now paying for abortions for their employees also gave money to senators who voted to confirm the justices who gutted this constitutional right?

Amy Klobuchar
@amyklobuchar

Women in Texas shouldn’t have fewer rights than women in Minnesota.

Rob Reiner
@robreiner

The GOP got what it wanted. Now we get what we want. A Democratic House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a Woman’s Right to Choose the Law of the Land. VOTE!!!

Love the optimism even if he's wrong. More hope:

Dan Rather
@DanRather

Sometimes major setbacks precede, and even spur, transformational victories.

David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf

History may look back at the period in which we are living and call it The Great Regression. It is a time in which on issue after issue, we are seeing decades and sometimes centuries of progress reversed. We have never seen anything like this before in our history.

That's what I said: viewtopic.php?p=170682#p170682

George Takei
@GeorgeTakei

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, who am I, Susan F-ing Collins?

Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis
@RevJacquiLewis

You were warned.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body."

Al Franken
@alfranken

After overturning Roe, Thomas wants to revisit Griswold, Lawrence, & Obergefell. How about revisiting Thomas’ conflicts of interest instead of our rights? #RoeVsWade

“We can have different opinions and still be friends” doesn’t apply to human rights.

Thomas and Candace Owens are in favor of overturning the 13th Amendment.

Isn't it dangerous for a black man to want to go back to the Founders' intentions?

all his friends tell him he's one of the good ones

Ouch.

[Vrede too]

George Takei
@GeorgeTakei

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, who am I, Susan F-ing Collins?

Are Joe Manchin and Susan Collins Stupid—or Do They Just Think We Are?

... With apologies to whatever staffers on Teams Collins and Manchin wrote those pretty little words, it’s going to take a lot more than a press release to unfuck what they have helped to fuck up, and it’s going to take a lot more than a declaration of surprise for voters to believe that Manchin and Collins had no idea this would happen.

There’s bullshit, and then there’s fucking bullshit. And this is fucking bullshit.

[Vrede too]

Rez abortions might be legal and unstoppable by the misogynists, but women could still be charged for traveling to them like for traveling to abortion-legal states.

I don't think they're going to be able to make that work. But if they do, I'm moving to Canada or Mexico for real.

I just heard some TV talking head cautioning pregnant women that their internet search histories may be used as evidence against them in some states.

[O Really]

I just heard some TV talking head cautioning pregnant women that their internet search histories may be used as evidence against them in some states.

Well, sure - if having an abortion is a crime, and the "perp" is suspected of having one, then evidence that she looked for "closest abortion clinic to Gideon, TX" then that could be collaborating but not direct evidence. Same as now for other crimes. If your spouse dies from arsenic poisoning, and you've been looking for "how to kill with arsenic" then you'll need a good answer for that. But it's still not illegal to look for online info itself, and they're still going to have to get majorly creative and will some really wacky court decisions to prosecute somebody in Gideon TX for pot they smoked or abortion they had or casino they visited in NV.

[O Really]

BTW, the decision in Dobbs, IMNVHO, was an abortion of justice and a very unusual flouting of precedent, but otherwise wasn't necessarily wacky. Roe was decided from a right to privacy, derived from the 14th Amendment, which as the moon barkers have been saying for 50 years, is an interpretation, not specifically stated. So Due Process establishes Privacy, and an abortion should be part of privacy. There could have been a different interpretation in 1973, and moon barkers have long argued that the wrong interpretation was made. Problem is, that abortion is a constitutional right has held and been upheld for 50 years and has become an accepted part of the culture/society - except for the moon barkers. A shocking decision, a decision against all normal Supreme Court practice, and a decision against majority public support, but not a wacky one.

[GoCubsGo]

I'm a little too lazy to look, but have the Dems not had a super majority to codify women's rights since 1973?

If they have, shame on them.

[Vrede too]

I'm a little too lazy to look, but have the Dems not had a super majority to codify women's rights since 1973?

If they have, shame on them.

They barely had one for about 6 months in 2009, but Byrd was old, Kennedy was sick and Franken was delayed. Then, economy rescue and Obamacare were the priorities. Also 1975 - 1979. There were probably times that a few moderate Repubs - remember them? - might have played along, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_div ... y_Congress

[O Really]

Federal law wasn't necessary after Roe. Abortion was a Constitutional right and could not be denied by states. Now, with no Roe, federal law is the last ditch.

[Vrede too]

Federal law wasn't necessary after Roe. Abortion was a Constitutional right and could not be denied by states. Now, with no Roe, federal law is the last ditch.

Much to our horror and shame it turns out it was necessary. Constitutional rights are often codified and elaborated upon. Then, the misogynists would need to beat a filibuster in order to make abortion illegal.

[Whack9]

The candidate that lost the popular vote twice got to choose three supreme court justices. One of which was right on the cusp of the general election. As we all remember, McConnel refused Oabam a choice due to it being an election year.

What a joke of a country. Proud to be an American? Not really. A large chunk if my countrymen are scoundrels and hypocrites that defer judgement to an emotional support ghost and a book written by bronze age goat herders.

[O Really]

What a joke of a country. Proud to be an American? Not really. A large chunk if my countrymen are scoundrels and hypocrites that defer judgement to an emotional support ghost and a book written by bronze age goat herders.

Well put!

[neoplacebo]

Stone age goat fuckers. And they sincerely consider their work "well put." And a lot of idiots agree because they have nothing else to do.

[GoCubsGo]

The candidate that lost the popular vote twice got to choose three supreme court justices. One of which was right on the cusp of the general election. As we all remember, McConnel refused Oabam a choice due to it being an election year.

What a joke of a country. Proud to be an American? Not really. A large chunk if my countrymen are scoundrels and hypocrites that defer judgement to an emotional support ghost and a book written by bronze age goat herders.

Let's be real, McConnell got to choose three justices, trump was the useful idiot.

[Vrede too]

Let's be real, McConnell got to choose three justices, trump was the useful idiot.

One could argue that the RWNJ Federalist Society got to choose three justices and Moscow Mitch and TRE45ON are the useful idiots.

GWU to keep Clarence Thomas on payroll after Roe backlash
The justice suggested the Supreme Court "reconsider" rulings on contraception and same-sex marriage in his concurring opinion overturning the constitutional right to an abortion.

George Washington University will not cancel Justice Clarence Thomas’ constitutional law class or fire him, despite backlash against his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the university announced on Tuesday....

As a member of the community of GWU births, I apologize.

[GoCubsGo]

This court is working to throw this country back to the dark ages.

[billy.pilgrim]

This court is working to throw this country back to the dark ages.

Did you read this article?

viewtopic.php?p=170390&hilit=Supreme#p170390


https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-suprem

'"The ”novel” argument that a group of Republican states’ Attorneys General are advancing, and Neil Gorsuch has already endorsed in a lower court ruling before he was placed on the Court, is breathtaking. It could end most protective government regulations in America.

They’re arguing, essentially, that the EPA (and any other regulatory agency) can’t do all the steps listed above: instead, that detailed and time-consuming analysis of a problem, developing specific solutions, and writing specific rules has to be done, they say, by Congress itself.

In other words, Gorsuch says, Congress itself — not the EPA — must evaluate the science and then write the rules.

As if Congress had the time and staff. As if Congress was stocked with scientific experts. As if Republicans in the pockets of fossil fuel billionaires wouldn’t block any congressional action even if it did.

Back in 1984 the Supreme Court concluded, in their Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, that it only made sense that Congress would set goals and regulatory agencies, stocked chock-a-block with scientists and experts, would do the science and write the rules.

That doctrine is called “the Chevron deference.” Courts should defer, SCOTUS said, to the regulatory agencies, since they’re the ones with the expertise.

But Gorsuch has argued, essentially, that making rules — even the detailed scientific minutiae of rules — should be done by Congress instead of the EPA, and that agencies like the EPA should simply play the role of cops on the beat, enforcing those rules."

[GoCubsGo]

This court is working to throw this country back to the dark ages.

Did you read this article?

viewtopic.php?p=170390&hilit=Supreme#p170390

Yeah, it's time stack the court.

[Vrede too]

Did you read this article?

viewtopic.php?p=170390&hilit=Supreme#p170390

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-suprem

Bad link. This is what you originally linked:
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-suprem ... -preparing

The Supreme Court has Lit Our Planet on Fire
The SCOTUS has used it's ill-gotten power on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to cripple America’s ability to meet the challenge of climate change

[O Really]

Doomed. It's good to be old.