Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767
The Texas abortion law is funny. Citizens spying on each other for a bounty is like the USSR. What is particularly interesting is the amount of civil strife this could unleash. If you are a liberal woman do you cut off your pro-life friends and family since they can be informants?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

Supreme Court about split down the middle, 5-4:

Supreme Court Won't Block Highly Restrictive Texas Abortion Law After Delay
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour … ml?src=rss

Remember when people were making noise about Obama nominating two members of the Supreme Court, but then Trump did three without objection from the same group? "A president shouldn't do that!" Except there were presidents who nominated 4, 5. FDR nominated 8. Like, you don't have to be a US history triviologist, just look it up. Reagan nominated 3, by the way. Would have appreciated if more would have just addressed their fears about ideological pull away from their own ideas rather than try and make it about numbers.

Anyway, if it isn't the consequences for some of the fence sitters (who voted for Trump "for the memes" or because "he told it like it is") coming home to roost.

From:

Cassidy: New Texas abortion law could still be 'destroyed' by Supreme Court
https://news.yahoo.com/cassidy-texas-ab … 00155.html

excerpt wrote:

Biden administration have been vocal in their opposition to the measure. Biden said that Texas' restrictive new abortion law violates the Constitution and pledged to "protect and defend" abortion rights.
I'm sure statements from the Biden administration will have a huge swaying impact on the other half of the country. People who go into a dark, seething rage if they so much as hear the name, or other trigger names like AOC, Pelosi, etc. (I have anecdotes).

A better way to prevent abortion imo: thorough and frank sex-ed, bountiful access to contraceptives and family planning. I am so tired of hearing conservatives declare their great concern for babies, and then do a 180 expressing their disdain for welfare programs and stuff like free school lunches. Even when I was on the red side of things, it wasn't something that made much sense to me when I thought about it.
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+644|5338|Washington St.
The "Obama shouldn't nominate that many" was clearly just a talking point to rile up the base, who aren't smart enough to look 10 years in the past, and aren't smart enough to learn from the past, whether it be 30 seconds ago, or 10 years ago.


Also, I don't have a calendar on me but I'm pretty sure FDR was president for like 30 years so it makes sense that nominated 8.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

Three terms, actually, though maybe it felt like 30 years. Here's a list on top nominators:

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-nominated … es-3880107

Nixon nominated 4.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,746|5153|eXtreme to the maX
I don't know what the word is for the arrogance that is expecting everyone else to follow rules that don't exist and simultaneously expecting to be exempt from rules which do exist.

Basically it boils down to "Republicans should be allowed to select the Supreme Court, Republicans should be free to use every trick in the book to prevent Democrats selecting the Supreme Court"

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-09-06 01:03:04)

#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

When accused of something they can't wriggle out from under, "the other party does it too!"

It's a similar mindset to pointing out bigotry in Israel or India in response to uncomfortable comments about bigotry at home.
uziq
Member
+405|2500

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't know what the word is for the arrogance that is expecting everyone else to follow rules that don't exist and simultaneously expecting to be exempt from rules which do exist.

Basically it boils down to "Republicans should be allowed to select the Supreme Court, Republicans should be free to use every trick in the book to prevent Democrats selecting the Supreme Court"
RBG was urged on several occasions over the better part of a decade to retire when the moment was opportune and a democrat was in the white house. she refused.

democrats have done the exact same thing with supreme court nominations. it's just politics. it's a wonder it hasn't been stacked and expanded several more times than it has. the history of supreme court nominations is pretty labyrinthine and goes way beyond 'republicans are bad lol'.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-06 02:56:41)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,746|5153|eXtreme to the maX
RBG fucked it up.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+405|2500
the constitutional (or unconstitutional, in the case of the U.K.) overlap between the executive, legislative and judiciary is everchanging. the balance and separation of powers is fragile. different branches of government arrogate or rescind power at different moments.

of course, technically a supreme court judge should never be overtly political, or make any ultra vires claims on the executive’s turf. but, as in the unspoken norms of the british system, it’s obvious that the very senior-most judges are intrinsically political. so, yes, in that regard RBG fucked it up.

the latter-day republican party are far more shameless about playing the game as it has been devised, whether it’s supreme court nominations or voter suppression/district rezoning, etc. but they haven’t been the only blameless ones. not even in recent history.

there’s a wider legal argument about just how big the supreme court should be, ideally. these sorts of things weren’t thought through to the fullest extent when the whole form of government was strung together. often times the judges’ own roles, as well as their judgments, turn on a single clause of text or phrase written over 200 years ago. not easy stuff.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,746|5153|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the unspoken norms of the british system
LMAO The British judiciary exists to protect the establishment
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+405|2500
yeah, no. the supreme court literally rejected boris johnson's attempt to prorogue parliament last year.

and remember this? from 2016? in one of the main tabloid mouthpieces of the establishment?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Daily_Mail_-_Enemies_of_the_People.png

'the establishment' is present in every country, of course. the US legal system favours rich elites too.

but to say that the judiciary at the highest level plays a servant to the executive or 'establishment' is historically inaccurate. it has ran counter to the aims and ambitions of the government on any number of occasions, asserting the independence of the judiciary.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-06 05:39:46)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,746|5153|eXtreme to the maX
The govt /= the establishment
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+405|2500
i am discussing the separation of powers, particularly in the context of an overweening executive or state legislative.

you, as per usual, seem to think that the travails your family suffered in the 1980s is far more important to the discussion. how many women are there in texas, i wonder?

i already said that, no shit, judges and barristers look more favourably on the rich and privileged insiders. why don’t you turn your ire to the fact that non-whites and street criminals get much harsher sentencing than white-collar criminals? same principle … except oh, it doesn’t affect you personally. i think we GET it by now.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard