Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[hntnhole]

On 6/26/2022 at 4:29 AM, BareLover666 said:

How come the rights from Roe v Wade, hasn't been codified in Federal law in the last 50 years as to protect the rights of women a bit more against judicial review?

I just noticed this question.  It's because each Federal judge that's nominated to the SCOTUS must appear before the US Senate for confirmation (to the high court), which is preceded by individual meetings with Senators.  Mr. Thomas, during that process, was asked many questions by most Senators in these private meetings whether he concurred that R.v.W. was "Correctly Decided, Standing Law". The asshole lied to each Senator, saying he agreed that it was, just so he could be confirmed to the High Court.  So, he knew perfectly well that if he told the truth, he wouldn't be elevated - so he simply lied.  Over the years, the tradition of Senate confirmation has become somewhat of a smiling, nodding, not-worth-much type of action.  Yes, some Senators took it seriously, grilled the nominee(s) extensively, and voted against confirmation, and those Senators are to be thanked for taking this as seriously as they did.  Some others, however - for instance, Susan Collins (R, Maine, since 1997), treated the confirmation process more like having milk & cookies with the nominees.  

Now, with the Senate so closely divided, and with that old relic of the "Jim Crow" years - the contrivance of the "filibuster" still standing - the minority can prevent the majority from passing any kind of legislation at all.  Worse, to overcome a filibuster, 2/3 of the Senate must concur to override a filibuster.  That kind of unity simply doesn't exist in the Senate these days. It's become a cesspool of infighting, preserving their fund-raising abilities, and center stage for the battles to come.

Hope this helps answer such an excellent question.

[hntnhole]

17 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

and part 2 was written in the first century AD; for advice on how to live well (!)

AND which second part has been so heavily altered through the centuries by human constructs of repression - such as the R.C. Church - and subsequent to Luther, splintered into dozens of even more fractious belief-systems, of which only the barest handful currently reflect the original Message.  There are actually smallish congregations (particularly in the South) that actually believe that the one they claim to follow was - - - wait for it - - - Caucasian !!!   White as a sheet of paper !!!  This, in an attempt to defend their perverse belief in the depravity of "White Privilege".

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

AND which second part has been so heavily altered through the centuries by human constructs of repression - such as the R.C. Church - and subsequent to Luther, splintered into dozens of even more fractious belief-systems, of which only the barest handful currently reflect the original Message.  There are actually smallish congregations (particularly in the South) that actually believe that the one they claim to follow was - - - wait for it - - - Caucasian !!!   White as a sheet of paper !!!  This, in an attempt to defend their perverse belief in the depravity of "White Privilege".

I'm not sure when it started, but a lot of those people are obsess with sex and from what I've read, most of the second half does not deal with sex but with all kinds of basically nice ideas like treating each other we'll... nice. 
For instance it's not that clear that the text says that homosexuality is wrong. 
I for one do not have sex with a man, like I have with a women. (Letters of Peter). And I'm very hospitable. (Story about Sodom and Gomorra).

Possibly sacred texts and their interpretations where the first 'bubble' preceding Facebook, Twitter, etc.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I just noticed this question.  It's because each Federal judge that's nominated to the SCOTUS must appear before the US Senate for confirmation (to the high court), which is preceded by individual meetings with Senators.  Mr. Thomas, during that process, was asked many questions by most Senators in these private meetings whether he concurred that R.v.W. was "Correctly Decided, Standing Law". The asshole lied to each Senator, saying he agreed that it was, just so he could be confirmed to the High Court.  So, he knew perfectly well that if he told the truth, he wouldn't be elevated - so he simply lied.  Over the years, the tradition of Senate confirmation has become somewhat of a smiling, nodding, not-worth-much type of action.  Yes, some Senators took it seriously, grilled the nominee(s) extensively, and voted against confirmation, and those Senators are to be thanked for taking this as seriously as they did.  Some others, however - for instance, Susan Collins (R, Maine, since 1997), treated the confirmation process more like having milk & cookies with the nominees.  

Now, with the Senate so closely divided, and with that old relic of the "Jim Crow" years - the contrivance of the "filibuster" still standing - the minority can prevent the majority from passing any kind of legislation at all.  Worse, to overcome a filibuster, 2/3 of the Senate must concur to override a filibuster.  That kind of unity simply doesn't exist in the Senate these days. It's become a cesspool of infighting, preserving their fund-raising abilities, and center stage for the battles to come.

Hope this helps answer such an excellent question.

Best case scenario:

A real dialogue will happen both in politics and society.  Even when it's about sex (everybody should mind their own business and it would indeed be 'silly' (as Thomas himself once wrote) for state legislatures to prohibit consenting adults from doing what they want));
Or when it's about abortion because really no serious person would be propagating abortus for no good reason, even when in the end they are for the right of a woman to choose I for one would like to offer choices and alternatives. (Not to decide for her, just to make it possible that it is really the best necessary choice if that's the case); And I can hardly belief that most people would force a woman to cary a baby to term after rape, and never if it will cost the woman in question here life.

My point is: it should be possible to reach a common ground in all these subjects, even if people have strong feelings about it.

[hntnhole]

10 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

My point is: it should be possible to reach a common ground in all these subjects, even if people have strong feelings about it.

Of course it should.  In any civilized society that should always be the case.  Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of citizens in the US that have never been taught to think for themselves: they've been taught to fall in line behind someone who declares them self to be The Leader.  It is the complete surrender of their humanity, their intelligence, their self-worth, and their value to society.  When a group of people jettison their humanity, in favor of being in some cult, well .... the result was clearly demonstrated a bit to your East 100 years ago. 

You're 100% correct:  it should.   But when good-faith negotiation evaporates, so do the institutions that bind the people together into one nation.  

[tallslenderguy]

56 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

What's also quite interesting is when people refer mainly to a book that contains in part 1 some ancient jewish texts from centuries BC, and part 2 was written in the first century AD; for advice on how to live well (!)

People. Oi !

Right?  There's a type of person who wants a black or white rule book to base their life on vs paying attention to what is going on now and evolving. Some people want a 'holy writ,' but those same people typically fail to see that they are using that to support their own emotional disposition... interpretation. 

[tallslenderguy]

16 hours ago, TotalTop said:

That is never going to happen.

Stuff like The Inquisition or similar (to me), Islamic conquests, did not result in entire populations converting whole heartedly, but they did have control and asserted it against populations like gay people or 'infidels.'  

Fundamentalists believe gays are going to hell for fucking. There are fundamentalists who want to put gay people in jail. They may not convert gays to their way of thinking, but they still want to repress us and they do not see us as equals. Thomas want's to "revisit"  (and overturn) the rulings that give people equality. Well, gay people anyway, he probably doesn't want to revisit slavery. 

i think people like Thomas are the ones spreading fear ("fear mongering.").

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, lambie59 said:

I find it amazing that a Country in 2022 has its Highest Legal Institution using Legislation ratified on June 21st 1788 and December 15th 1791in its decisions. 

The fact that these pinch-faced creatures on the SCOTUS had to reach that far back into history to find hateful enough legislative hooks to hang their white sheets and hoods on is the result of this Nation failing to address the hellish issue of enslaving an entire race of human beings, fighting a terrible civil war over that depravity, and then failing to put in place institutions to ameliorate that grave error.  The chickens are finally - after over 400 years - coming home to roost, and the price of supporting the filth of White Privilege will be very steep indeed.  Perhaps too steep to be paid-in-full .... and we're the ones who must choose decency over depravity now.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Fundamentalists believe gays are going to hell for fucking.

on a lighter note:

when we all meet up there, first round of drinks is on me.
all the fun guys will be there. 😈

yay fundamentalists. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

they've been taught to fall in line behind someone who declares them self to be The Leader.  It is the complete surrender of their humanity, their intelligence, their self-worth, and their value to society. 

the terrifying fact of the matter is that the same thing seems to be happening here in Western Europe where we've tried this already in '39 - '45 under the Nazi occupation. one would think people learn from their mistakes, but sometimes I fear we're doomed to make the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and over (etc.) again.  😕

And in the words of a German Lutheran priest, Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

So I'm actually there's this small uproar in our little corner of the internet about SCOTUS allowing the banning of abortion, at least something is being said at least. 

 

[hntnhole]

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

There must be something more than a mere political party that's to blame.

You're 100% correct.  There is.  

There are certain "faith-traditions" in the US that not only excuse, but actually support White Privilege, which is at the root of the national debacle taking place.  These are not the "mainline" denominations, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.  These are smallish, loosely confederated denominations, and mostly in the South.  These cultural organizations-cum-churches have tacitly as well as actively supported institutionalized racism since before there even was a USA.  Thus, the roots of racism are deeply imbedded in the stolen land of this country, and I wonder if they will ever die.  Racism has been so carefully tended, taught overtly and covertly in this country, I doubt it will ever die.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try as hard as we can.  As you might imagine, I reserve my deepest disdain for Romanism, but the others are hardly blameless.

You're also correct in blaming the cultural divisions on various sources of information.  I think it's human nature to seek out others of our own mindset, and the online sewers of disinformation have only exacerbated the problem.  I too am guilty, in that I never watch the Fox channel (unless there's a good game being broadcast).  I have never used any of the so-called  services like facebook, tweaker, instagram, all the rest.  Frankly, I just don't have time to waste on it, and I saw it for what it was years ago. These "social media" sites are nothing more than funnels, aiming people into their own little corrals of shallow sloganeering, in my humble opinion.  Rather, I subscribe to publications (print or electronic) that I know have no political axe to grind, and present issues in a balanced way.  

Thanks for your interesting responses.

[hntnhole]

20 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

And in the words of a German Lutheran priest, Martin Niemöller:

I've read a number of his books/letters, and he's magnificent.  Also, Bonhoeffer's writings, in the same vein.  If we don't learn from those who faced similar (for those to, far worse) challenges, how can we avoid making the same mistakes?

[viking8x6]

21 hours ago, TotalTop said:

That is never going to happen.

It would be unwise to rely on that... as someone said earlier in this topic,

Quote

nobody can actually accurately predict the future.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, hntnhole said:

You're 100% correct.  There is.  

There are certain "faith-traditions" in the US that not only excuse, but actually support White Privilege, which is at the root of the national debacle taking place.  These are not the "mainline" denominations, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.  These are smallish, loosely confederated denominations, and mostly in the South.  These cultural organizations-cum-churches have tacitly as well as actively supported institutionalized racism since before there even was a USA.  Thus, the roots of racism are deeply imbedded in the stolen land of this country, and I wonder if they will ever die.  Racism has been so carefully tended, taught overtly and covertly in this country, I doubt it will ever die.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try as hard as we can.  As you might imagine, I reserve my deepest disdain for Romanism, but the others are hardly blameless.

You're also correct in blaming the cultural divisions on various sources of information.  I think it's human nature to seek out others of our own mindset, and the online sewers of disinformation have only exacerbated the problem.  I too am guilty, in that I never watch the Fox channel (unless there's a good game being broadcast).  I have never used any of the so-called  services like facebook, tweaker, instagram, all the rest.  Frankly, I just don't have time to waste on it, and I saw it for what it was years ago. These "social media" sites are nothing more than funnels, aiming people into their own little corrals of shallow sloganeering, in my humble opinion.  Rather, I subscribe to publications (print or electronic) that I know have no political axe to grind, and present issues in a balanced way.  

Thanks for your interesting responses.

You need to stop reading completely inaccurate revisionist garbage masquerading as 'history' like the 1690 project, CRT, etc. You obviously do not read politically neutral or balanced accurate history or news sources.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, TotalTop said:

You need to stop reading completely inaccurate revisionist garbage masquerading as 'history' like the 1690 project, CRT, etc. You obviously do not read politically neutral or balanced accurate history or news sources.

What sources / authors would you recommend?