Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Cygnia]

...and still my husband won't consider moving...

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

And go where? The options become more limited and less attractive every day.

[Cygnia]

Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Are Collecting Troves of Data That Could Be Weaponized Against Women

[DShomshak]

12 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Yeah, it's being blamed on Biden by his political opponents, and spoon-fed to their cult followers by their media allies. But keep in mind, the highest rated Fox News program is Tucker Carlson's with a viewership of 3 million. I.e. one percent of the American population. The Jan. 6 committee hearings have been getting 20 million viewers across all platforms. The word is getting out. At the end of the day, there are more sane Americans than cultists.

 

That said, Democrats need to get more aggressive in countering Republican propaganda. This past year we've seen hopeful signs as some Dems have been publicly taking the gloves off, but they still have to go farther.

But sane Americans are outnumbered by simple folk who only care about their pocketbooks, exemplified by the woman interviewed on ATC who said Democrats were wasting time with the Jan. 6 commission hearings instead of doing something to lower food and gas prices.

 

So, the midterms will be a landslide for Republicans. At which point, expect a blizzard of highly publicized "investigations" of the Biden administration, and likely a few impeachments. And an interview with a co-founder of the Lincoln Project offered an even more horrific possibility: House Speaker Donald Trump. Because nothing in the Constitution says the Speaker must be a member of the House.

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

What's most chilling to me about the decision today is the rationale.

 

Quote

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

 

From the majority opinion.  So, anything not specifically enumerated as protected, is NOT protected.  That's scary as heck.  Thomas explicitly wants to go further;  he wants to reconsider everything in this vein.  Sodomy, contraception, and same-sex marriage decisions are all things he wants to target.  Plus, should repressive laws resurface...as with all the abortion bans...there will be major pressure to use email and probably even phone location data as evidence in prosecutions.  So this isn't even going back to the 1500's;  it could be far, far worse.  1500's morality with 1984 intrusive oversight.

 

We can hope today's decision polarizes enough people to turn away from the Republicans.  I think there will be some, particularly women voters...but I don't think it'll be close to enough.  I don't think they'll bother trying to impeach Biden;  I think it more likely they'll focus on positioning for 2024 and beyond.  But I could be wrong;  they might, just as payback for the Jan. 6th hearings, and to pander to their base.

 

Overall...combined with the gun permit ruling, which is certainly much narrower and may allow workarounds, but is still highly problematic...this feels like the tipping point day.  Today feels like it'll be noted as the funeral for progressive policies.

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

Just now, unclevlad said:

We can hope today's decision polarizes enough people to turn away from the Republicans.  I think there will be some, particularly women voters...but I don't think it'll be close to enough.  I don't think they'll bother trying to impeach Biden;  I think it more likely they'll focus on positioning for 2024 and beyond.  But I could be wrong;  they might, just as payback for the Jan. 6th hearings, and to pander to their base.

 

 

My expectation is that the blame on gas and food prices on Biden will work for the midterms, and the Jan 6th hearings will be the political excuse to investigate the dems (regardless of popularity of the idea) and to re-engineer the legal courts as much as possible for the next few years.  So the next time they want to challenge an election legally, they can essentially kangaroo-court the entire legal process of reviewing the election in numerous States.

[Pariah]

So let me make sure I've got this right. We have:

 

The moderate Chief Justice who tries to maintain a balance between Left and Right, until he doesn't;

 

The old black guy who never says anything in court;

 

The angry white conservative who finally got to write that opinion he's been looking forward to for decades;

 

The guy who isn't Merrick Garland;

 

The drunken frat boy who somehow ended up with a law degree;

 

The token Conservative woman (See? The GOP values women!);

 

The token Jewish woman;

 

The token Latina woman; and

 

The last remaining white male Liberal, at least he until his retirement, when he'll be replaced by the token Black woman.

 

And these nine people, or more properly, six of these nine people, are responsible for determining the nation's legal policy with respect to firearms, reproductive rights, and the proper role of corporations in American life.

 

Have I missed anything?

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

So let me make sure I've got this right. We have:

 

The moderate Chief Justice who tries to maintain a balance between Left and Right, until he doesn't;

 

The old black guy who never says anything in court;

 

He does now that he doesn't have Scalia to speak for him.  Also he's married to an insurrectionist.

 

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

 

The angry white conservative who finally got to write that opinion he's been looking forward to for decades;

 

The guy who isn't Merrick Garland;

 

The drunken frat boy who somehow ended up with a law degree;

 

The token Conservative woman (See? The GOP values women!);

 

The token Jewish woman;

 

The token Latina woman; and

 

This is a little unfair; Kagan and Sotomayor were highly regarded in the field by the time of their nominations.  Contrast this with the "token Conservative woman" who literally didn't know the rights enumerated in the First Amendment during her confirmation hearing.

 

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

 

The last remaining white male Liberal, at least he until his retirement, when he'll be replaced by the token Black woman.

 

And these nine people, or more properly, six of these nine people, are responsible for determining the nation's legal policy with respect to firearms, reproductive rights, and the proper role of corporations in American life.

 

Have I missed anything?

 

The evisceration of our Miranda rights?

[Lord Liaden]

If there's anything that can galvanize backlash against the Republican Party in the mid-terms, this ruling is it. I still maintain that if they're soundly defeated, the US has a path back. But if they aren't, it's going to be a wild ride for the whole world.

[wcw43921]

Quote

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

 

None of these judges have heard of the Ninth Amendment?

[TrickstaPriest]

17 minutes ago, wcw43921 said:

 

None of these judges have heard of the Ninth Amendment?

 

One of the recent justices couldn't even enumerate the rights given in the First Amendment.

[Pariah]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

The evisceration of our Miranda rights?

 

Oops, I forgot about that one. It's been a busy week.

 

And yes, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor (and Brown Jackson) are eminently qualified. At least to anyone objective. But to members of Cult 45, they're tokens. 

[Ranxerox]

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

 

None of these judges have heard of the Ninth Amendment?

 

I think that in Alito's mind, the only rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are those that were widely accepted by the founding fathers.  Hence, all his discussion ancient legal cases and English common law dating back to colonial times. 

[Dr. MID-Nite]

So now what? Voting doesn't work (and they're actively ensuring to keep it that way), the court is now compromised for possibly another generation, protests don't work, and the disparity of power between the top and the rest of us is even worse than ever.  Not trying to be a doomer, but seriously...I'm tired of losing.

[TrickstaPriest]

6 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

So now what? Voting doesn't work (and they're actively ensuring to keep it that way), the court is now compromised for possibly another generation, protests don't work, and the disparity of power between the top and the rest of us is even worse than ever.  Not trying to be a doomer, but seriously...I'm tired of losing.

 

And climate change is going to destroy the financial stability of anyone making less than a few million a year.  And don't even talk about retirement.

 

The death of protest is why I was so scared about how the Floyd protests were being handled.  And this is pretty much what we are going to see now that this right is no longer effective. 😕

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

If there's anything that can galvanize backlash against the Republican Party in the mid-terms, this ruling is it. I still maintain that if they're soundly defeated, the US has a path back. But if they aren't, it's going to be a wild ride for the whole world.

 

I agree that if this can't do it, nothing can.  However, I think it's too late.  The anti-abortion movement isn't close to new.  It's been the rallying cry of the religious conservative/Moral Majority wing since the 80s, at least.  Second, this Court will be very hard to reverse...Kavanaugh is the oldest of the 3 Trump selections, and he's only 57.  So there's 3 activist, literalist votes that'll be around for 20 years or more.  Heck, there may not be a seat opening for 10 years.  Third, even if there's backlash...is it plausible to think it can possibly be *enough*?  The Republicans have mastered ruling from the minority:  by being obstructionist.  They'll simply wait til 2024, and continue to suborn the election process.

 

Good GOSH I hope I'm wrong.  And I think it'll cost them some borderline seats, but not enough.  

 

And, yes, I can't see a path upward...just down.  And very violent.

[Old Man]

24 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

The death of protest is why I was so scared about how the Floyd protests were being handled.  And this is pretty much what we are going to see now that this right is no longer effective. 😕

 

The Floyd protests were insufficient.  As a matter of historical record, nondisruptive protests rarely accomplish substantive change compared to blockades, strikes, or widespread property damage.  I am happy to be corrected if anyone has significant evidence to the contrary.

[Old Man]

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I agree that if this can't do it, nothing can.  However, I think it's too late.  The anti-abortion movement isn't close to new.  It's been the rallying cry of the religious conservative/Moral Majority wing since the 80s, at least.  Second, this Court will be very hard to reverse...Kavanaugh is the oldest of the 3 Trump selections, and he's only 57.  So there's 3 activist, literalist votes that'll be around for 20 years or more.  Heck, there may not be a seat opening for 10 years.  Third, even if there's backlash...is it plausible to think it can possibly be *enough*?  The Republicans have mastered ruling from the minority:  by being obstructionist.  They'll simply wait til 2024, and continue to suborn the election process.

 

Good GOSH I hope I'm wrong.  And I think it'll cost them some borderline seats, but not enough.  

 

And, yes, I can't see a path upward...just down.  And very violent.

 

The path back into the light would require midterm victories so decisive that it would overcome any legal (or quasilegal) challenges and enable the abolition of the filibuster, the expansion of the Supreme Court, the regulation of media organizations claiming to be news, and overturning Citizens United.  It's not a likely path, but it's a path.

[unclevlad]

5 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

The path back into the light would require midterm victories so decisive that it would overcome any legal (or quasilegal) challenges and enable the abolition of the filibuster, the expansion of the Supreme Court, the regulation of media organizations claiming to be news, and overturning Citizens United.  It's not a likely path, but it's a path.

 

Nope.  Many of these are begging to be worse disasters.  Ditch the filibuster only works until the Reps have THEIR majority...then it backfires.  Same with expanding the Court.  The Reps have already shown they're far better at managing Court composition.  Regulating the media will run afoul of the First Amendment very, very quickly...and we've already got the precedent that the talking heads are not offering 'news'...it's opinion.  And even if that does work, it'll simply enable forces to hammer at progressive sites...which they will *gleefully* do.  Citizens United might get overturned if the Court is expanded enough...but as soon as the composition flips back?  It's gone again.

 

The Founding Fathers didn't...couldn't...envision how mass media could be used by those whose goal is to seize power, rather than govern.  This is, IMO, a core aspect of today's decision...the literal "if they didn't explicitly put it in, it ain't in there" works to prevent reforms by tying our hands.  Heck, even non-constitutional law has problems keeping up with the social changes enabled by modern communications.

 

As Tricksta also noted...climate change is another massive factor.  The political crisis will deepen, but...ok, perhaps it could get fixed.  That won't be any time soon, but it could happen.  BUT, with climate change complicating food production, increasing problems like fires and damaging storms, and the ongoing, SEVERE drought...we don't have the time.  

[BNakagawa]

The counter argument to not packing the courts is that just letting them run amok is going to do lasting harm right now. In real time.

 

If you limit their ability to erode human rights now, at least it kicks the can down the road and opens up the possibility that things might actually improve. Sure, they could undo things if they ever regain power, but that was going to be the case anyway. 

 

If you're not going to use your temporary advantage to change the situation to redress the obvious injustices done by the other side by refusing to even give Garland a hearing and to ramrod their candidate in record time, what is even the point?

[TrickstaPriest]

Just now, BNakagawa said:

If you're not going to use your temporary advantage to change the situation to redress the obvious injustices done by the other side by refusing to even give Garland a hearing and to ramrod their candidate in record time, what is even the point?

 

Yeah.  There are consequences to not act when a political party has thrown out the idea of elections and laws.

[Pariah]

Imagine my surprise.

 

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

Imagine my surprise.

 

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

 

He missed Loving v. Virginia. https://www.businessinsider.com/obergefell-telling-clarence-thomas-didnt-bring-up-loving-v-virginia-2022-6

[Lord Liaden]

Americans seeking abortion get help from Mexico

 

Where's the "sh**hole country" now, Donald Trump?

 

(Absolutely no derogation intended against America and Americans, just juxtaposed for irony and to give credit to Mexico.)

[unclevlad]

Freedom House gave the US an 83 rating for 2021.  It will be interesting to see how much this drops.  Key points:

 

Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?

Are individuals free to practice and express their religious faith or nonbelief in public and private?  
Does due process prevail in civil and criminal matters?

Is there an independent judiciary?

 

The last is a big one.  On one level, sure, the Supreme Court is independent, but by the same token, it's become massively politicized.  (The dissent, and Alito's retort, are public evidence that they're not working well together, but I've also heard several reports that they keep separate even during meetings.)  The Texas ani-abortion law is an example how due process is threatened.  And not listed, because it's multiple questions, IIRC...free and fair elections issues.

 

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total Score and Status

 

The score is 32 for political freedoms, 51 for civil rights.  As recently as 2015, they were 37 and 55.  We've slipped 9 points in 6 years.  Another 13, and the general classification goes from Free to Partly Free.  But we're not alone:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule