The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:40 am

There's a lot of history here, which most people will consider boring. Perhaps it's best to take it as read for the moment.

With the death of Bader-Ginsberg, the court enters what looks to be an era of a strong "conservative" majority. I put quotes around conservative because though they cloak their agenda in that ideological pretence, the justices of the majority have proven themselves all too willing to overturn and strike out in new directions if that's what is needed to push their views onto the nation.

The progressive elements of US society are minimally and I'd say often grudgingly represented by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have shown that they're incapable of effectively thwarting the Republicans' march toward a Christofascist* government. The idea of an expanded court which could more faithfully reflect the relation between the US Constitution and the people of the US is almost certain to remain in the realm of fancy. The Democrats don't have the gumption to do anything like that, if recent history is a reliable indicator.

*Yeah, I'm willing to call it that. The Republicans may never realize the dystopian wetdreams of David Barton and his creepy ilk, but the combination of authoritarianism and ascendant repressive evangelical Christianity is unequivocally the current Republican Party brand, aside from their standard overt obeisance to the cupidity of corporations and the well-heeled.

The US Supreme Court has directly meddled in the political realm, including choosing a president only a couple of decades ago, and is likely to do so in the future, maybe in the very near future. This thread provides a place to discuss that and other important developments. For this post: It appears the likely new justice will work tirelessly to advance an agenda that will please the Christofascists.

'Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Has A Problem With The Constitution'
In [Barrett's] record as clerk, law professor and judge, there is evidence of ... a tendency to view the Bill of Rights as anything but generous for life choices. ...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett either has written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

“Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.”

Per her record, if the case is about religion or guns, Barrett is for the individual; if it is about abortion or gender, Barrett seems to forget about the individual.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:01 am

Professional ideologues may try and bend society, and indeed reality itself, to their will, but in the end there's more of us than there are of them. I mean, Wade vs Roe and the Civil Rights and Equality acts were passed and upheld because they reflected not just the will of the general populous but the actuality of how they lived their lives. If the trend continues to bounce political matters up to the Supreme Court that institution runs the risk of making itself constitutionally irrelevant - which would undermine its stated role and powers under Article III. The question is: would any Supreme Court judge like that to be seen as their enduring legacy?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:32 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:01 am
Professional ideologues may try and bend society, and indeed reality itself, to their will, but in the end there's more of us than there are of them. I mean, Wade vs Roe and the Civil Rights and Equality acts were passed and upheld because they reflected not just the will of the general populous but the actuality of how they lived their lives. If the trend continues to bounce political matters up to the Supreme Court that institution runs the risk of making itself constitutionally irrelevant - which would undermine its stated role and powers under Article III. The question is: would any Supreme Court judge like that to be seen as their enduring legacy?
The new appointee wouldn't care about that - she's on record as saying that building the Kingdom of God is the ultimate task...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:14 am

and she claims to be a Catholic? the KoG is not for this world, it's for where dog is. even the Celestial Jerusalem that we'll have after the second cumming (poor guy, cumming only twice in over 2000 years) is not for us to build until he's there.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:08 am

I think she'll find that creating an over-arching national theocracy is against the constitution - unless 2/3rds of the House vote to change it, or 2/3rds of State executives form a convention and agree on a reform. I think that's how it goes anyway.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:09 am

In other words, it's not up to the Supreme Court to decide on what's in the constitution, only to decide upon what it means in relation to specific cases.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 8950
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by NineBerry » Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:36 am

Well, that's the problem with religious people: They read the book and come to conclusions that aren't in the book. Or can you find any place in the Bible where it condemns abortions?

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47190
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:23 am

The Bible tells the priest to help the couple with infidelity problems. He makes the woman a magic potion that makes her abort, if the husbend is not the father of the fetus:
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-o ... -abortion/
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47190
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:26 am

The Senate should be made to watch this during the hearing:
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47190
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:20 pm

The woman apparently has a right to privacy. Her uterus seemed not to be under the jurisdiction of the federal gov't. According to amendments 9 and 14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

but now the entire supreme court and several senators will be legislating inside that uterus.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:12 pm

give the new ultra con court an occasion, and they will demonstrate that this reading was mistaken.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:06 pm

They'll just find states refusing, and without a shithead like Trump in power, their efforts to stop it won't have teeth.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:52 pm

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal on the Arizona vote suppression law that was overturned by the 9th Circuit because it was so blatantly racist in its effect. Looking forward to a ruling that will finally and effectively gut the Voting Rights Act.

'Appeals Court Finds Arizona Intended To Suppress Nonwhite Votes'
The national conversation around voting rights is deeply skewed. Republican lawmakers and operatives openly endorse disenfranchisement; they brag when their attacks on suffrage succeed; and they work feverishly to rig redistricting in favor of white people. But all too often, judges refuse to acknowledge the racism of voter suppression laws, dancing around the purpose of these measures. Only rarely will a court admit what every reasonable observer should already know: The disproportionate impact of these laws on minority voters is no coincidence; it is exactly what legislators intended.

It is refreshing, then, that on Monday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not tiptoe around the bald facts: Arizona Republicans’ recent crackdown on voting rights was motivated by racism. The court invalidated a law that was plainly designed to stop Native American, Hispanic, and black voters from casting a ballot—not just because it happened to burden minorities more than whites, but because it is flat-out racist.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:40 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:06 pm
They'll just find states refusing, and without a shithead like Trump in power, their efforts to stop it won't have teeth.
So, there'll be states that allow abortion, and those that don't. I predict a lot of cross-border travelling...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:43 pm

Worse, the court will become irrelevant; a bit of theatre, mostly ceremony for the American loon, not unlike the Pope's decrees to most Catholics...yeah, whatever old man. :biggrin:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests