American Politics

[Astreya]

@purplehaze

One might think that the US gun lobby wants to force mainly poor women to breed more cannon fodder as fresh targets for their gun enthusiasts.

[purpledragonclaw]

6 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)

 

 

 

The U.S. Constitution didn't confer rights to women either, outside of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, and note that that right came about as an Amendment, because the original Constitution omits women entirely. Do you want to start strictly considering women as citizens in that way only? Because overturning established precedent that's stood for 50 years is going to open the doors to just that very thing. There's a reason Thomas mentioned wanting to go after same-sex marriage and gay relationships in general (but left out the ruling about interracial marriage, how interesting, wonder why?) Want the Handmaid's Tale to come to life in America? Prepare for this reality if we continue overturning established legal precedent. 

 

I will say this again: the U.S. fought a war over what state's rights should mean because of slavery. This is why something like health care should never be left to a patchwork system per state since some states will not recognize women's basic autonomy over their own bodies. 

 

@Astreya it's not just about guns, but also the need to keep a permanent class of working poor to feed the system of worker exploitation and the industrial military complex. A large number of jobs don't pay enough to live on, causing people to take more than one of these jobs to survive. Women forced into having kids will keep this underclass of workers that can be exploited going since they won't have the time and energy to fight for something better. Poor people can't afford college where they have the chance to make their lives better, so the military becomes a more appealing option. More bodies for the war machine. 

[Fuzzbucket]

37 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

will say this again: the U.S. fought a war over what state's rights should mean because of slavery. This is why something like health care should never be left to a patchwork system per state since some states will not recognize women's basic autonomy over their own bodies. 

 

THIS so very much.

[Long_Before_Sunrise]

9 hours ago, Astreya said:

@purplehaze

One might think that the US gun lobby wants to force mainly poor women to breed more cannon fodder as fresh targets for their gun enthusiasts.

I have seen comments on this elsewhere. You're not the only one who has thought it. 

 

9 hours ago, purpledragonclaw said:

also the need to keep a permanent class of working poor to feed the system of worker exploitation and the industrial military complex. A large number of jobs don't pay enough to live on, causing people to take more than one of these jobs to survive. Women forced into having kids will keep this underclass of workers that can be exploited going since they won't have the time and energy to fight for something better.

Right now, I think the Republicans are only thinking about fulfilling 40 decades of Republican campaign promises to win the midterms.

Now they seem to be telling themselves that the public is just having a big childish temper tantrum and it'll die down by November. That people will learn to "live with decisions they don't agree with." 

But no, women aren't going to forget if their home pregnancy test shows  positive, because nine months is only the beginning.

[catstaff]

How about we expand the "safe haven" places where unwanted babies can be left off without the mother being prosecuted for child abandonment to include the homes of the six unjust Justices who voted in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade? They want to force women into having the babies, force them to take care of those unwanted babies.

 

Yes, I know, it can't actually happen. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the mental image of Brett Kavanaugh surrounded by a dozen or more screaming infants, preferably while being puked on by at least two of them.

[AngelsSin]

@TJ09

Thank you for showing that some men do actually get it!

 

You know what they say "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

And right now we have an entire country of pissed off women. And don't you know that women have a Loooooonngg memory!!!

I would be surprised if Republicans don't get a rude awakening this November!

 

Also glad to live in one of the state that have abortion in our state constitution. Although who know what that moron DeSantis has planned, he is on a serious power trip and i know he has stacked Florida's court just like Trump stacked the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the things i don't like about things being at the state level is the risk that each election cycle has the potential to lead to laws being changed each time power changes hands.

 

This decision has cracked (an already unstable) foundation of our country's future. It is beyond moronic to make decisions based on what was intended by the founders of our country and constitution. They lived in a different world/life than we do. They did not have the knowledge that we do now, to base decisions on the way of life that has zero bearing on current society is ludicrous. We have different expectations, needs, desires and to expect us to accept so antiquated notions and beliefs that are so egregious to our current way of life is out of touch and tone deaf. And this is not gonna turn out the way they had hoped. Women will not accept being put back in the box we lived in before.

Most of us have not lived in a country where this right of ours whether you like/believe/accept it as right/moral/etc isn't a constant.

You don't get to take away what we grew up believing is a fundamental right of ours and think we are just gonna move on from and accept this as the new normal for us. I know this is just their stepping stone to taking away more of our rights. This WILL lead to civil war if not corrected.

 

We are not the same women from the 15th to 20th century who had no rights who were the generations of: women should be seen and not heard. We are not the meek and mild women of those generations. We will not ever accept going back in history to were we had less/no rights. And could not make choices for ourselves.

This is NOT a GIFT! Not matter what any MAN says.

In the end this will be a WAR they LOSE. Women do not forget. We will endure this stupidity until we correct the mistake that idiots made but we will never give up or accept this ruling as a new normal for us. And in correcting this mistake we will ensure that such stupidity can never ever happen again. And we will also make sure other rights cannot be stripped from us in the future like: same-sex marriage, contraceptives, inter-racial marriages, slavery, etc. It is sad and horrifying that that even needs to be said. But the Supreme Court better watch out cause they are about to be put on notice. Fix your mistake or the powers you have taken for grant are gonna be shaken up by the will of the people with women being some of the loudest front runners for that change.

 

We will not stand down!

 

 

[catstaff]

6 hours ago, AngelsSin said:

In the end this will be a WAR they LOSE. Women do not forget. We will endure this stupidity until we correct the mistake that idiots made but we will never give up or accept this ruling as a new normal for us. And in correcting this mistake we will ensure that such stupidity can never ever happen again. And we will also make sure other rights cannot be stripped from us in the future like: same-sex marriage, contraceptives, inter-racial marriages, slavery, etc. It is sad and horrifying that that even needs to be said. But the Supreme Court better watch out cause they are about to be put on notice. Fix your mistake or the powers you have taken for grant are gonna be shaken up by the will of the people with women being some of the loudest front runners for that change.

 

We will not stand down!

 

 

 

We already know they're coming after same-sex marriage and other LBGTQIA rights. Clarence Thomas said so. They won't touch interracial marriage, though, look at who his wife is. He'll take away everyone else's rights, but not his own.

[Astreya]

Out of curiosity - can the US constitution be really changed or can there only be amendments set up while the original text is fully kept? How often are there amendments made to the US constitution?

 

 

For comparison - the German Grundgesetz (literally "Basic Law", but in fact our codified constitution) has 2 Articles (1 and 20) that are protected by a so-called "eternity clause", that is, they can't be changed in their essence/principles or removed ever. (The first article is a protection of the human dignity ("Menschenwürde") and human rights; they are core values protected by the Basic Law. The principles of democracy, republicanism, social responsibility, federalism and rule of law are key components of Article 20.)

 

Otherwise the German Grundgesetz is amended comparatively frequently (the last time was 1 January 2021) to make sure that everything is going with the time, even though it needs both a two thirds majority in the Bundestag (parliament) and Bundesrat (similar to the US senate).

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

[trystan]

3 hours ago, Astreya said:

Out of curiosity - can the US constitution be really changed or can there only be amendments set up while the original text is fully kept? How often are there amendments made to the US constitution?

(not a constitutional scholar~)

only amendments.

and they seem random:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

some of them, like the 22nd amendment, which is for presidential term limits, was brought on by FDR dying shortly after he was elected to his fourth term.  he was elected in '44, died in '45, and that got everyone thinking maybe there ought to be term limits.  according to what wiki link i posted, it took two years to officially propose the amendment.

 

and there's a story to the 27th one, why it was proposed in 1789, and not actually ratified until 1992! (short version: they forgot about it!)

[Astreya]

@trystan

Thanks for the info! Looks like amending the constitution is pretty difficult in the US - and in the current confrontational climate it appears to be practically impossible.

[Long_Before_Sunrise]

@AsymDoll13 CEO: Duolingo will move operations should Pennsylvania ban abortion

Edited June 27, 2022 by Long_Before_Sunrise

[AsymDoll13]

2 minutes ago, Long_Before_Sunrise said:

@AsymDoll13 CEO: Duolingo will move operations should Pennsylvania ban abortion

 

Well that's interesting. 

[AngelsSin]

11 hours ago, catstaff said:

 

We already know they're coming after same-sex marriage and other LBGTQIA rights. Clarence Thomas said so. They won't touch interracial marriage, though, look at who his wife is. He'll take away everyone else's rights, but not his own.

 

I wasn't actually referring to Clarence Thomas being the one to do it he is only one person among nine and anything can happen as we have seen with Roe being overturn.  I am well aware of who his wife is and why he wouldn't want inter-racial marriage to be touched. But he could get sick or lose his life in an accident, things happen.

 

It might not happen anytime soon, it could happen the next time the Republicans get the White House again.

This sets a twisted precedent that can have long reaching implications.

Not all of what i said would necessarily happen right away but those who want a white america aren't just gonna stop because Clarence Thomas says so. And it is short sighted to think that because he personally wouldn't want such to be passed that it would never happen.

[trystan]

3 hours ago, Astreya said:

Thanks for the info! Looks like amending the constitution is pretty difficult in the US - and in the current confrontational climate it appears to be practically impossible.

you're welcome.

and you're right.

the left is over here

and.....

the right is over here

and there's nothing in the middle.

*sigh*

 

14 minutes ago, AngelsSin said:

it could happen the next time the Republicans get the White House again.

This sets a twisted precedent that can have long reaching implications.

and, IMO, this is why we need another Blue Wave.

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by trystan

[AngelsSin]

4 hours ago, trystan said:

and, IMO, this is why we need another Blue Wave.

 

I agree however i worry about Biden running again in 2024. I wasnt exactly enthusiastic about voting for him but he was the best of a poor selection to vote for. And i worry about him say running against DeSantis, who is definitely trying to project a tough man image who will force through policies that would be a bitter pill to swallow for most of us.

 

Those who want a White America are seeing this as a victory they have tasted blood and they want more, and they won't stop till they get everything they want now, they see that everything they want is possible and it is just around the corner for them.

The only thing that can stop that is if those against the policies they want stop being so short sighted and stop being nice/politically correct trying to make sure they are being fair to all people. Trying to make everyone happy is a fools errand, it is just not humanly possible. We are just too perverse a species for that to ever be possible.

We need to take the threat of this seriously and maintain our rage long term, but Republicans are counting on americans having a short attention span and maybe deliberately raising another issue for Dems to focus on before the elections. The whole look at this hand not that hand trick.

We need to be to not get distracted by the issues they want us to focus on like the economy, no one is denying that it is not bad but Dems lose if we let them divert our focus to that issue and not focusing on them stripping us of our rights and of their future plans.

 

Eta: apparently i am not the only one who thinks this could lead to overturning inter-racial marriage rights or Black rights 

Whoopi

 

Also what is still on the menu for the Supreme Court

The last one i find most disturbing

 

Also the one for climate change is upsetting as well with the cost of ignoring climate change being so devastating especially in light of what John Oliver exposed in his latest episode concerning water issues.

Edited June 28, 2022 by AngelsSin

[trystan]

1 hour ago, AngelsSin said:

I agree however i worry about Biden running again in 2024.

agree.  there are some Dems who say he really oughtn't run again.

 

1 hour ago, AngelsSin said:

but Republicans are counting on americans having a short attention span and maybe deliberately raising another issue for Dems to focus on before the elections.

this. the rethuglicans know americans have short attention spans.  but i hope this anger lasts past november.

 

1 hour ago, AngelsSin said:

We need to be to not get distracted by the issues they want us to focus on like the economy, no one is denying that it is not bad but Dems lose if we let them divert our focus to that issue and not focusing on them stripping us of our rights and of their future plans.

completely agree.

[Lagie]

[Astreya]

@Lagie

And don't forget to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that your students may be touched by His Noodly Appendages!

[trystan]

@Astreya*draws your attention to FSM in my signature*

Lagie and I just talked about that on my facebook! (kinda)

[Lagie]

22 hours ago, Astreya said:

@Lagie

And don't forget to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that your students may be touched by His Noodly Appendages!

21 hours ago, trystan said:

Lagie and I just talked about that on my facebook! (kinda)

 

Well, here's an interesting development:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/06/29/abortion-vasectomies-roe-birth-control/ (Thanks, @trystan!)

[Astreya]

@trystan @Lagie

Arr! May His Noodly Appendages be with you!

 

On a more serious note - more proof the Supreme Court "Conservatives" are definitely neither pro life nor do they want to conserve the world:

 

"The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity: The EPA ruling means it may now be mathematically impossible through available avenues for the US to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goal"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-epa-decision-devastating-humanity

 

‘Condemning everyone alive’: outrage at US supreme court climate ruling. Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is ‘devastating’

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/30/supreme-court-ruling-epa-west-virginia-climate-experts-activists-lawyers

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Astreya

[StormBirdRising]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:23 AM, TCA said:

 

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?

 

In reading the actual holding for the Dobbs case (the one that overruled Roe and its sister case, Casey),  and concurring statements by the Justices, it is clear that the Court set no legal precedent with the ruling in the Dobbs case.  Each concurring opinion,  especially that of  the Justice Clarence Thomas, stressed that the decision was confined to the issue of abortion only . It was very narrowly construed to include ONLY the issue of abortion. 

One of the biggest critics of the Roe decision was the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most adamant proponents for women's rights.  Although she was not on the Supreme Court at the time Roe was decided,  she was shocked that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority and rewrote the law regarding abortion.  The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the law,  not with writing new laws in their images and likenesses.  The last thing I want is a pro-active Supreme Court.  A pro-active Supreme Court could have declared the fetus to be a person and conferred Constitutional protections to the fetus.  

The Court rightfully returned the abortion issue where it belonged,  with the Legislature and thus the people.  Congress has had 50 years to bring the law forward to pass a cohesive abortion law consistent with Roe, yet has chosen to do nothing.  Perhaps they will step up to the plate and make that happen.  

[TCA]

3 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

 

In reading the actual holding for the Dobbs case (the one that overruled Roe and its sister case, Casey),  and concurring statements by the Justices, it is clear that the Court set no legal precedent with the ruling in the Dobbs case.  Each concurring opinion,  especially that of  the Justice Clarence Thomas, stressed that the decision was confined to the issue of abortion only . It was very narrowly construed to include ONLY the issue of abortion. 

They say that now, but just you wait: they'll still use it as precedent when it benefits them.  And when they do, I want you to think about how you defended them now, and how I told you this would happen, and I want you to wonder if maybe you've been wrong about anything.

[purplehaze]

Something truly scary!

Poll shows a quarter of Americans open to taking up arms against the government

More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a

poll released on Thursday claimed.

This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.

 

https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Polarization-Poll.pdf

[Fuzzbucket]

5 hours ago, TCA said:

They say that now, but just you wait: they'll still use it as precedent when it benefits them.  And when they do, I want you to think about how you defended them now, and how I told you this would happen, and I want you to wonder if maybe you've been wrong about anything.

 

YES. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/01/roe-v-wade-1973-ruling-supreme-court