Well, the “Supreme” Court has to protect Justice Thomas’s miscegenacious union with Every Justice’s Darling, Ginni, the Brains and Backbone of the Insurrection.
9 Likes
Perhaps Christina would prefer something like this.
3 Likes
Yes, just when we need the Democratic base to turn out the most.
5 Likes
Do we ever have any assurance that when we vote it will make a difference? Voting is an article of faith.
1 Like
Pelosi Reacts With Renewed Call For People To Vote
That’s my corrected headline.
21 Likes
Good point. However, this decision is an ‘unforced error’. Authoritarianism works best in a creeping, incremental fashion: rights and mores are slowly eroded until the point they disappear before most people realize it. Dramatic moves tend to generate outrage and pushback. As an example, look at how the West has turned against China. The Chinese government was much more effective when it was slowly creating client states and increasing its global economic and military presence. However, When China started seizing international waters to build military bases and began direct threats to Taiwan, the West mobilized. China became overconfident and overplayed its hand, as I believe the SC has now done.
13 Likes
Chill your pants. How am I victim blaming? I’m talking about Congress in general, i.e. the institution that’s been around since forever.
I don’t know if that scenario is true. The justification for Dobbs is all based in the Constitution being the only authority on the matter, which gives The Hacks all the leeway they want. If Congress were to pass a law I think they’d be much more hamstrung. What would it be? MS sues the Feds over the statute, claiming it violates their…what exactly?
1 Like
Cristina links to a CNN tweet. All the replies are attacks on Pelosi/Democrats by the leftier-than-thou.
4 Likes
The Supremes find laws unconstitutional all the time, most especially when it’s in support of a right-wing cause.
The actual justification doesn’t matter, just that they get five votes.
10 Likes
Yes, because Clarence’s hit list is dumb beyond belief. I’m just pointing out a bunch of the things he thinks have no constitutional protection thanks to his shitty take that there’s no such thing as substantive due process.
Note: Substantive due process very much was a thing already when the 14th Amendment was enacted.
15 Likes
Me, too! Those were the weird old days. But clearly, things are getting both weirder and more serious. Time to resurrect the Janes.
“Just have the baby and give it away”?? Those crazy old geezers (and the geezette) have no clue what it costs to just “have” a baby. A few decades ago, it was costing a couple over $5,000 out of pocket. If you know you can’t support another baby, how can you possibly afford to birth one, under this medical system? And don’t give me the “Obamacare” excuse … plenty of employers don’t offer coverage to their employees, by hook or crook or technicality. Many states haven’t expanded Medicaid. Need I mention, just how many pregnant women (not to mention pregnant men) are on Medicare?
11 Likes
As I replied to becca656, the SC is now ‘overplaying its hand’.(The concealed carry decision also comes to mind…) I think the blowback may be bigger than we expect.
13 Likes
I wouldn’t consider this a trigger law. This is just an ancient law that no one formally got rid of because Roe did the work for them. But hey! Now with Roe gone, it’s back!
Shortly after the ruling was released, Tanya Atkinson, president & CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, shared a video message saying the agency had been forced to suspend abortion services.
Damage done.
After a draft opinion indicating the court was poised to overturn Roe was leaked, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said he would not enforce the state law. Still, local law enforcement officials could choose to do so.
You know the right-wing zealots will.
Gov. Tony Evers attempted to repeal the state’s abortion ban prior to the SCOTUS decision. But Republican lawmakers rejected the special session Wednesday, gaveling in and out within seconds
Naturally.
8 Likes
Moronic (and wrong) head-up-it’s-ass troll says what?
I’ve read a lot of Thomas dumbassery, but this one made my jaw literally drop.
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. […] Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Just a straight on deranged attack on a pretty central principle. Like I’ve known he doesn’t believe in it, but god damn.
8 Likes
Gotta make them work for it. Especially since they’re so big on deferring to Congress and legislatures in general.
1 Like
One notable event among our “history and traditions” was that, for the last 49 years, up until today, abortion was a constitutionally protected right.
15 Likes
Totally agree. Hey, Josh, try to get a reporter to cover this story,
2 Likes
The White House announced that the President will give a speech responding to SCOTUS’ ruling at 12:30 p.m.
I cannot imagine what he’s going to say that will make any of this any better.
And now, they are bringing out the riot gear & big guns to protect the court from women. Too bad they didn’t do that on Jan 6. [click for video]
`
`On way to the
—
court pic.twitter.com/XrE9ExAzhm
Manu Raju (@mkraju)
16 Likes