American Politics

[AsymDoll13]

Ugh... Is Australia nice this time of the year? Or Canada? Or anywhere else for that matter? I'm done. 

[Lagie]

7 minutes ago, mishhelle said:

the idea of leaving this country to burn itself to the ground sounds better every day

Hmm...

 

5 minutes ago, AsymDoll13 said:

Ugh... Is Australia nice this time of the year? Or Canada? Or anywhere else for that matter? I'm done. 

Australia's nice. Canada's hot and humid unless you go way north (and cold in the winter).

 

I don't even have the words... I'm sorry for all you Americans.

[AngelsSin]

As bad as this is and it is really freaking bad. It is gonna get worse. They are telegraphing their next moves by stating

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

 

So look for them to also to overturn - same sex relationships, same sex marriage, our rights to contraceptives, and who knows what else they will set there sights on overturning. This is a dark day in the U.S. 

 

4 hours ago, Astreya said:

Maybe it is time for women in the US to arm up and then shoot every man who comes too close to them in self-defense as they wouldn't be allowed to get an abortion if raped? Maybe something like that would make the fundamentalist ultra-right wing think twice?

 

(One might argue this would be pre-emptive self-defense. If one is raped and gets pregnant and is then denied a life-saving abortion as the doctors are too afraid to get punished, one could die, and to avoid that one needs to make sure one can't get impregnated in the first place. And as one is allowed to openly carry weapons for self-defense, how can anyone object to using them in nowadays US?)

 

I agree and i would also seriously reconsider having any sexual relations with any man at this time as if you/I could get pregnant and not want to have a child we will in all likelihood need quite a bit of travel money to get an abortion. Especially if they take away our rights to contraceptives as well. It is not like as women we don't know that birth control can fail. 

Already women were seeing problems with doctors not wanting to take a chance when a women was miscarrying of performing a much needed abortion. These women were not getting needed treatment for their miscarriages, which puts their lives in danger. 

Even women who want and plan a pregnancy are at risk now. And i think they should seriously weigh the risk of what happens if they miscarry and are refused treatment because it could be seen as them participating in an abortion.

Edited June 25, 2022 by AngelsSin

[Long_Before_Sunrise]

1 hour ago, mishhelle said:

the idea of leaving this country to burn itself to the ground sounds better every day

That's a long, complicated, and expensive process unless you have dual citizenship through your parents. 

[mishhelle]

^I can get dual citizenship through my parents, this is something I’ve looked into because I’ve been saying I hate the way things are going in the US. 
 

and yes, this country is being figuratively burned to the ground. by conservatives and fundamentalists. 

[trystan]

sharing this:

 

The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated
(hopefully that link works)

 

do we believe this, from the opinion:

Quote

"And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

 

this is hilarious:

Quote

Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so. In the last election in November 2020, women, who make up around 51.5 percent of the population of Mississippi,” constituted 55.5 percent of the voters who cast ballots.

wow.

back to the state legislatures, and the women! wtf?!

[Long_Before_Sunrise]

Police Investigate After Truck Drives Into Roe Protesters in Iowa

 

1 hour ago, trystan said:

back to the state legislatures, and the women! wtf?!

State's rights, like during the Civil War. Until the conservatives decide a state is doing state's rights the wrong way, then it'll be back to obey federal law. 

[StormBirdRising]

Even though it was HIS birthday on June 23,  Judge Clarence Thomas gave a gift to 330,000,000 Americans in the Free Republic of the United States of America in his writing of the Supreme Court's majority opinion when he wrote a sweeping opinion that expands gun rights significantly.

Previously, the court had only said that the Constitution protected the ability to have a gun inside the home for self-defense. In that decision, which came down in 2008, the justices didn’t rule on how guns carried outside the home could be regulated. It took almost 15 years for the justices to come back to that question, but now they have. The Second Amendment “protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion.  "Laws like New York’s, which required people who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have a good reason, are no longer allowed."  Under the new ruling, state governments can no longer argue that a gun restriction should be upheld because it serves an important interest. Instead, judges will only consider whether “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The decision was 6 to 3.  

 

And in a second historical decision, the Supreme Court took the abortion issue out of the hands of the Federal Government and gave it back to the states, where it belongs. 

CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, IN THE MAJORITY OPINION:

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

"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."

CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, IN A CONCURRING OPINION:

"The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion."

"Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States."

"To be clear, then, the Court's decision today does not outlaw abortion throughout the United States. On the contrary, the Court's decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process."

 

 

 

 

[TJ09]

8 hours ago, Astreya said:

Maybe it is time for women in the US to arm up and then shoot every man who comes too close to them in self-defense as they wouldn't be allowed to get an abortion if raped? Maybe something like that would make the fundamentalist ultra-right wing think twice?

 

(One might argue this would be pre-emptive self-defense. If one is raped and gets pregnant and is then denied a life-saving abortion as the doctors are too afraid to get punished, one could die, and to avoid that one needs to make sure one can't get impregnated in the first place. And as one is allowed to openly carry weapons for self-defense, how can anyone object to using them in nowadays US?)

 

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to take a "neutral" stance (thereby enabling states to ban abortions) rather than establishing abortion as a protected right is a huge step back for anyone assigned female at birth.

[Fuzzbucket]

Thank you @TJ09 A decent man who recognises that women have rights over their own bodies.

 

Again I post what should in many ways be the last word on this, not lea\st for those religions fundamentalists who are pro-birth but not pro-life after birth:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dr-miller-join-being-both-090020122.html

 

A wonderful piece by another Good Man.

 

As for the revised gun legislation - I suppose people who want more and more gun crime will be pleased. No, guns don't kill people; people do. But only people with GUNS shoot people.

[purpledragonclaw]

Guns are rapidly gaining more rights in the U.S. than women. 

[purplehaze]

I just have no words. I no longer recognize the country I have lived in all my life.

[Astreya]

5 hours ago, TJ09 said:

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

Thank you for being a voice of reason and a Good Man.

[Wolfs_Bane]

6 hours ago, TJ09 said:

 

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to take a "neutral" stance (thereby enabling states to ban abortions) rather than establishing abortion as a protected right is a huge step back for anyone assigned female at birth.

 
Thank you TJ! The fact the rights of females being yanked away is a horrible nightmare. I am terrified for my daughters future as well as my own. ((Even though my own uterus is aging out. I have IUD to be on the safe side. I have my two and do not plan on having anymore.))

WB

[Long_Before_Sunrise]

A candidate for state Senate in Rhode Island, Jeann Lugo (R), has been placed on leave from his job as a police officer after allegedly assaulting his opponent Jennifer Rourkeat (D) at an abortion rights rally.

Lugo told The Providence Journal that he was “not going to deny” the allegations.

“It was very chaotic, so I can’t really tell you right now,” he told The Journal in an email. “Everything happened very fast.”

 

You mean the kind of situation where he had police officer training to remain cool-headed and in control?

 

“Last night, after speaking at our Roe rally, my Republican opponent — a police officer — violently attacked me,” Rourke wrote in a social media post on Saturday. “This is what it is to be a Black woman running for office. I won’t give up.”

Edited June 25, 2022 by Long_Before_Sunrise

[purpledragonclaw]

11 hours ago, TJ09 said:

 

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to take a "neutral" stance (thereby enabling states to ban abortions) rather than establishing abortion as a protected right is a huge step back for anyone assigned female at birth.

 

Thank you for this. Basic human rights should never have a "neutral" stance. Were such previous heavy issues left up to the states there would still be slavery in a large chunk of the U.S. Thank you for your morality.

[trystan]

15 hours ago, TJ09 said:

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to take a "neutral" stance (thereby enabling states to ban abortions) rather than establishing abortion as a protected right is a huge step back for anyone assigned female at birth.

thank you TJ.

 

i worry for my daughters, and have told the younger one (she's 21) that it wouldn't surprise me if her and her boyfriend move to canada or somewhere other than here.  it's a very scary time for them.  like WolfsBane, i have my two daughters, and don't plan on any more either, since my body will be going through some fun old-woman changes soon as well.

 

10 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Again I post what should in many ways be the last word on this, not lea\st for those religions fundamentalists who are pro-birth but not pro-life after birth:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dr-miller-join-being-both-090020122.html

A wonderful piece by another Good Man.

very interesting read.  we need more people like this doctor.

[Lagie]

16 hours ago, TJ09 said:

 

My stance (and therefore the stance of Dragon Cave, for the two are one and the same) is pro-choice—a person should be given the agency to decide the outcome of their pregnancy, including choosing to abort said pregnancy.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to take a "neutral" stance (thereby enabling states to ban abortions) rather than establishing abortion as a protected right is a huge step back for anyone assigned female at birth.

Thank you, TJ.

 

 

11 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Again I post what should in many ways be the last word on this, not least for those religions fundamentalists who are pro-birth but not pro-life after birth:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dr-miller-join-being-both-090020122.html

 

A wonderful piece by another Good Man.

Very well said.

[StormBirdRising]

Here is the actual holding (decision) of the United States Supreme Court  

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

 

And here is the decision in its entirety.  The dissenting opinions are on the last 67 pages.  The entire decision is over 200 pages long. 

 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

Here is the Docket number.  Generally a few days after a USSC decision several synopsis will be published,  in case you want to find a condensed version of the decision.

19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022)

 

 

[Astreya]

I think the design of the US Supreme court desperately needs to be reformed. By appointing justices life-long, one creates a severe imbalance.

 

Personally, I consider the setup of the German Federal Constitutional Court highly sensible in comparison:

Quote

The court consists of two senates, each of which has eight members, headed by a senate chairperson. The members of each senate are allocated to three chambers for hearings in constitutional complaint and single regulation control cases. Each chamber consists of three judges, so each senate chair is at the same time a member of two chambers. The court publishes selected decisions on its website and since 1996 a public relations department promotes selected decisions with press releases.

 

Decisions by a senate require a majority. In some cases a two-thirds vote is required. Decisions by a chamber need to be unanimous. A chamber is not authorized to overrule a standing precedent of the senate to which it belongs; such issues need to be submitted to the senate as a whole. Similarly, a senate may not overrule a standing precedent of the other senate, and such issues will be submitted to a plenary meeting of all 16 judges (the Plenum).

 

Unlike all other German courts, the court often publishes the vote count on its decisions (though only the final tally, not every judge's personal vote) and even allows its members to issue a dissenting opinion. This possibility, introduced only in 1971, is a remarkable deviation from German judicial tradition.

 

The court's judges are elected by the Bundestag (the German parliament) and the Bundesrat (a legislative body that represents the sixteen state governments on the federal level). According to the Basic Law, each of these bodies selects four members of each senate. The election of a judge requires a two-thirds vote. The selection of the chairperson of each senate alternates between Bundestag and Bundesrat and also requires a two-thirds vote.

 

The judges are elected for a 12-year term, but they must retire upon reaching the age of 68. Re-election is not possible. A judge must be at least 40 years old and must be a well-trained jurist. Three out of eight members of each senate have served as a judge on one of the federal courts. Of the other five members of each senate, most judges previously served as academic jurists at a university, as public servants or as a lawyer. After ending their term, most judges withdraw themselves from public life. However, there are some prominent exceptions, most notably Roman Herzog, who was elected President of Germany in 1994, shortly before the end of his term as president of the court.

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court

[purplehaze]

1 hour ago, Astreya said:

I think the design of the US Supreme court desperately needs to be reformed. By appointing justices life-long, one creates a severe imbalance.

It allows one President (or one party) to have much too lasting an influence.

 

I hate to see my granddaughter have to grow up in a world where women's choices, and even women's lives are so devalued. My daughter-in-law had dangerous complications during her pregnancy. I know that neither she nor my son would want her to have to carry an unintended pregnancy through to term. Chances are very good it would kill her. Is her life worth less than an unborn child's? I am not "pro-abortion" as such, but I do believe that it should be available should a woman and her doctor believe it is the best choice for her. And when you start putting restrictions on who can have an abortion and when, as many states have or will, it takes away the ability to make that decision -- which should be a private one.

[Fuzzbucket]

2 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

Here is the actual holding (decision) of the United States Supreme Court  

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

 

And here is the decision in its entirety.  The dissenting opinions are on the last 67 pages.  The entire decision is over 200 pages long. 

 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

Here is the Docket number.  Generally a few days after a USSC decision several synopsis will be published,  in case you want to find a condensed version of the decision.

19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022)

 

 

I have actually read it. It is still profoundly wrong - and if you have a constitution that doesn't allow an individual rights over their own body, if it ix even possible to interpret it that way, that constitution is profoundly wrong also and needs amendment. IT also needs to be amended to prevent any state denying anyone's own rights over one's own body.

 

31 minutes ago, Astreya said:

I think the design of the US Supreme court desperately needs to be reformed. By appointing justices life-long, one creates a severe imbalance.

 

Personally, I consider the setup of the German Federal Constitutional Court highly sensible in comparison:

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court

 

As do I. It should never be possible to load something for years and years in advance, as Thump did. Times change, even if such preloading were actually benevolent - which this was not.

[TCA]

4 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

Here is the actual holding (decision) of the United States Supreme Court  

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

 

And here is the decision in its entirety.  The dissenting opinions are on the last 67 pages.  The entire decision is over 200 pages long. 

 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

Here is the Docket number.  Generally a few days after a USSC decision several synopsis will be published,  in case you want to find a condensed version of the decision.

19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022)

 

 

 

Do you realize that this decision is also specifically saying that you, as an American citizen, do not have a constitutional right to a private life? That even if you happen to think abortion is wrong, this sets a legal precedent that could be used to justify state surveillance of your activity and beliefs in order to persecute YOU someday?

[Fuzzbucket]

Oh that's all over twitter. That you now have no right to privacy of your medical records, in particular. And actually of course - of your papers, your emails, your purchases.... Police state does not begin....

[purplehaze]

More on the extreme unfairness of this ruling:

https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-engraging-unfairness-of-dobbs?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

In part, he says

Quote

          The reactionary majority pretends that returning the issue to the states will restore balance and harmony to a democratic system. It will not. Instead, it will exacerbate inequality and divisiveness along geographic, wealth, and religious grounds. Americans in some states will have a right over reproductive choices, while others do not. Poor Americans will not have the same ability to circumvent abortion bans by traveling to other states. And some Americans will see their religious beliefs codified as law while others will be told that their personal beliefs do not matter.

          The patchwork of conflicting laws and elevation of differences will create two Americas. Affluent Christian evangelicals will surreptitiously travel to other states when their personal circumstances collide with their public professions of faith. Poor women will not have that choice but will be forced to give birth to children that the white, male, Christian-dominated legislatures have no intention of supporting with adequate healthcare, safe schools, or food security.

 

Actually, in many ways, the two Americas that he describes already exists, but this will exacerbate the inequality many times over.

Edited June 26, 2022 by purplehaze