Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TotalTop said:

Will France ever adopt Sharia law? 

Although you weren't asking me, I'd like to share my strong conviction that the chance of France adopting Sharia Law is much lower than the USA or my own country adopting it.

The principle of of Laïcité (secularism of the Nation) is more deep-rooted in French society and more strongly founded in their laws than in either of our countries.
Possibly that's why there are christian-faith parties here in our parliament - who often hold a determining vote - and why I hear a godawful lot about some 'God' from American politicians as well.

Your ancestors and mine revolted to a foreign sovereign;
The French revolted against their own King, the Nobility AND the Church. So that start has shaped the French Republics. (Their Fifth at the moment, which also shows they don't claim a perfect solution and democracy is bloody hard work).

Wishing you a belated happy Bastille day. 
 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Guest

[rawTOP]

I predict that we will lose the national recognition of gay marriages within 5 to 10 years. The threat is real unless people stand up to what's going on right now. Justice Thomas isn't fucking around. He has real power and he's using it.

Oh - and the porn you like to watch? Good luck with that as well… Notice how the GOP has started labeling everything that's LGBT as "pornographic" (e.g. yesterday's news story). They want to suppress people's freedom of sexual expression on all levels.

The Democrats are far from perfect, but the GOP has changed over the past 20-50 years and IMHO they're now the mortal enemy of people like us. I'm just hoping enough moderates (and women generally) will be upset enough about the Dobbs decision that they'll get out and vote Democratic in November. If the tide doesn't turn in November I'm really worried about 2024.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, rawTOP said:

I predict that we will lose the national recognition of gay marriages within 5 to 10 years. The threat is real unless people stand up to what's going on right now. Justice Thomas isn't fucking around. He has real power and he's using it.

Oh - and the porn you like to watch? Good luck with that as well… Notice how the GOP has started labeling everything that's LGBT as "pornographic" (e.g. yesterday's news story). They want to suppress people's freedom of sexual expression on all levels.

The Democrats are far from perfect, but the GOP has changed over the past 20-50 years and IMHO they're now the mortal enemy of people like us. I'm just hoping enough moderates (and women generally) will be upset enough about the Dobbs decision that they'll get out and vote Democratic in November. If the tide doesn't turn in November I'm really worried about 2024.

My crystal ball tells me most people - however outspoken and strong in their points of view - are actually moderates.

If however yours is correct in predicting the future AND if you are house-trained I've got a sofa you can crash on when your website - which feels a little bit like it's ours as the members here - is being banned. Bring hard liquor pls.

As a call to action, to listen, debate, both within all political parties and in our societies and to go out and VOTE you certainly are right to underline the seriousness of all this.

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, rawTOP said:

I predict that we will lose the national recognition of gay marriages within 5 to 10 years

If the R's take the majority in Congress, no acceptable legislation will be forthcoming to protect any of the privacy rights (except interracial marriage, of course).  I'll lay you a dollar to a donut it'll be half that many: 2.5 to 5 years.  These people have been stewing for decades, and they see this is their chance.  They will move as quickly as they possibly can.

 

1 hour ago, rawTOP said:

They want to suppress people's freedom of sexual expression on all levels.

Maybe.  But these ruby rednecks like to watch porn too, so at least some porn might sneak through.

 

1 hour ago, rawTOP said:

they're now the mortal enemy of people like us.

They have said so, and bluntly.  Their hatreds against "the other" are focused squarely on us, and our lives will change dramatically if these cretins move society back to the 19th Century.  Sites like yours will be history.  

 

1 hour ago, rawTOP said:

The Democrats are far from perfect, but the GOP has changed over the past 20-50 years

Yes, we are a fractious party, with many urgencies, each important to the welfare of all.  That tends to siphon off the political muscle we can muster, and this time around we cannot sit in our own little camps and stew.  We simply MUST vote, and vote Democratic up and down the ballot.  Straight-ticket.  Any citizen who can't be bothered to vote, doesn't deserve the rights so hard-won these past 50 years.  Here, our primary is next month, on the 23rd.  If I am still among the living, I will crawl on my hands and knees to the polling place if I must.  There is simply nothing more crucial.

I understand that Garland is most careful.  I understand that he dots every possible "i" and crosses every possible "t".  But if he doesn't act soon, these hatemongers will see political victory within reach, and it will help motivate them.  As far as I'm concerned, any R that has doubts about the whole fantasia of trumpism, but cannot bring themselves to vote Democratic,  should simply not vote.  

This is our country too, and this time we have to fight like the hatemongers have for all these years.  We have to get down in the ditches and fight.  

Thank you for your post.

[PozBearWI]

4 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Nope I am not a victim. I just know the two party system is broken and it is why I do not vote or support, or have membership in either party.

The theory about non-pro abortion people denying poz people meds has nothing to do with abortion. If someone is poz or living with AIDS it is up to them and their choice to go on meds, not go on them, stop taking them, start taking them, etc.

There are many moderate pro life people who are for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if it is medically necessary to save the woman but are against it when it is used instead of birth control or after the first trimester. It is actually less expensive and safer to use condoms with other types of birth control than it is to have an abortion or multiple abortions. Women also die from supposedly "safe and legal" abortions all the time.

Man I certainly have to agree that both parties are broken.  We seem to be living on the wingtips in recent years.  Frankly I am getting quite weary of extremists.  Certainly social growth within societies on earth would benefit mankind.  So few step back and assess viable options for steps to move is back to center when they are voting.  Bald faced lies have become ubiquitous.  Which is frustrating because when broadcast media is "in the room" all I can do is talk back to the screen - useless as they can't hear me.  But useful because I think it is important to utter out loud my objection rather than hold it in.  (( or perhaps I'm becoming a raving lunatic  ))

To the point of not voting for candidates of either party; that is certainly a vote of frustration.  Our social voter behavior to show up for their one favorite social issue doesn't get us to a path towards centrist.  There are individuals on the congressional investigation committee who I think might make fine candidates in 2024.  IMO this should not be an "I win, you lose" situation.  That position polarizes us.  I would love our society to get their head away from party wonks and listen to individual candidates so that we can start getting legislation done which benefits the majority of us.  Democracy is not going to make everyone happy; but it should make most of us OK enough.  

Abortion.  It is unfortunate that women find their way to unintended pregnancy's.  And some pregnancies become hazards to the host organism.  (eg: mother to be).  Don't all of us want the right to make decisions about what goes on with and to our own bodies?  Whether I think it is morally wrong or not; if it isn't my body then it is none of my business.  Doing uninvited things to another body is equally wrong.  I think a substantial majority of us would agree with this.  Some of us won't.  

Finally @TotalTop I'm not a victim either.  And I don't "read" that into posts of yours I've read.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Our social voter behavior to show up for their one favorite social issue doesn't get us to a path towards centrist

Agreed.  Myopia favoring whatever issue that's closest to our own hearts and minds will be our undoing.  AOC has been accused of this, i.e. willing to sacrifice the "good" in favor of waiting for the "perfect".  That will only get us intimate knowledge of what real repression feels like.  

 

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

IMO this should not be an "I win, you lose" situation.  That position polarizes us.

I agree 100%.  Unfortunately, the minority leader in the Senate has made that perspective the norm.  It's the daily m.o. of his party, and has been since the hatemongers worst nightmare came to pass - an African American elected President  - twice. The political party infamous for lock-step falling in line, bleating the "party line" ad nauseum, packing the Courts with reactionary judges, refusing to negotiate even the most clearly beneficial-for-all programs, on and on and on, has become the proponent of polarization.  The revel in it.  They brag about it.  They laugh at anyone who doesn't reflect their perverted view.  If we, as a country, are polarized, then I lay that directly at the wantonly partisan behavior of the so-called conservatives feet. The polarization isn't a future potential, it's the here and now.  It's the We Win, you lose, hardball political myopia.  "That position polarizes us" is no longer the case.  It has already happened, and they are working diligently all day every day to make their power permanent. 

You're right - it shouldn't be this way, but it already is.  In a few months, our only chance for redress - short of real trouble - will be at hand.  

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Democracy is not going to make everyone happy; but it should make most of us OK enough

This is the very definition of Democracy.  Rule of Law, as reflected by the majority of the citizens.  None of us gets every single thing we want.  Everyone gets something of what they want.  But the Radical Right has uprooted that principal, and done so years and years ago.  Look at it from their perspective: all their hero's are gone.  George Wallace is dead.  Bull Connor is dead. Strom Thurman is dead, and his DixieCrats with him.  And then what happened?  The worst outrage a racist hatemonger could possibly imagine: an African American elected President.   For people who's entire identity is centered - even consumed by - being White, they have nothing left to hang their white sheets on.  These people must be soundly thrown out of Government, since they do not come even close to reflecting the will of the majority of citizens.  

 

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Abortion

This is probably the most insidious of all the hatemonger's issues.  Actually, it has nothing to do with the procedure of an abortion at all, rather it is centered on the corruption of the religious message they claim belief in.  Diddling through the pebbles of at which moment life begins, at which point viability comes, are false flags.  They need to replenish their numbers, so they can continue to squat at the top of their depraved cultural spectrum.  They have been taught for generations upon generations that their god wants them - Caucasians - to rule this Continent.  Virtually every conflict this nation has become involved in, save the World Wars, have been in service to this outrage against humanity.  The depravity of White Privilege is about to either be defeated, or it will prevail.  And that outcome is up to men and women of good will to decide in a few short months.

 So pardon my histrionics, but - it really is down to the wire now.  

Thanks for your thoughts. JimInWisc. 

[ErosWired]

I have a prediction, too. It is possible that the worst may come to pass as these forces of social intolerance may come to power and impose their will on us all and turn the nation into an arch-conservative dystopian nightmare. But I predict that even should that occur, it will not endure. It cannot, because there is a generation of people coming up who have been raised in the context of a society in which these rights have been normalized. They, in time, will have the power, and they will decide what laws they do and do not want to live by. I predict they will not choose the laws of the dystopia.

I also predict, separately, that those currently greedy and ravenous for the power they may be about to wield, will do so with such zeal - for they are zealots - that they will overreach, go too far, and offend the sensibilities of people of common sense to the point that they will at the least blunt their blade, if not lose their grip on it entirely.

We shall see.

 I vote. Where I vote, my vote never shifts the needle one bit - the forces of ignorance and hate are too strong. But I vote.

Gamling: Too few have come. We cannot defeat the armies of Mordor.

Theoden: No. We cannot. But we will meet them in battle nonetheless.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Yeah the way people and the media are focusing on Clarence Thomas' race, while calling him outdated racist names like the one that ends in Tom, is hypocritical and disturbing, but not surprising.  I neither like or dislike Thomas.

I absolutely agree that focusing on Thomas's race is reprehensible. His legal thoughts are garbage whether they are the product of a black man's mind or a white man's mind, so his race has nothing to do with it.

That said, I do think noting the difference in race between him and his wife IS relevant, because the Supreme Court's Loving decision was just as much judicial activism as anything else the right routinely decries. The supporters of laws against mixed marriages pointed out, at the time, that blacks and whites WERE treated equally under the law - neither could marry someone of the opposite race, so there was no unequal treatment, which is all the 14th Amendment requires.

To that, the justices who struck down those laws in 1967 said, in essence, "Bullshit". The right to marry the person of one's choice was fundamental, they said, despite that right not being spelled out in the Constitution. And given the fundamental nature of that right, any infringement (like telling a black man he can't marry a white woman) is subject to the strictest of scrutiny: such laws are only permissible if the state has a compelling interest in achieving some goal, and this restriction is the narrowest way to achieve that goal. If the goal can be achieved by a less intrusive means, then the law must fall.

If only the Obergefell court made the same pronouncement regarding same-sex marriages, our rights would be in less danger. But as I've pointed out earlier, Obergefell (and Griswold, and Lawrence) are all predicated on a different legal theory (substantive due process) and Thomas openly rejects that legal theory in its entirety. There's some evidence that Alito would likewise be happy to ditch it. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh haven't addressed that, but they were happy to kill Roe, which was also based on substantive due process. So even despite the protests in the Dobbs opinion that those cases aren't implicated, you can read that as "not implicated yet, because a challenge to those cases is not before us."

Those cases will come. And you can't say that "it's settled law" because Roe and Casey were settled law, too. Casey specifically said that states could not ban abortion pre-viability (among other things). Then state after state started passing laws that clearly violated that standard - so-called "heartbeat" bills, for instance - and the Court, generally, just kept refusing to take up challenges to those laws, holding out for the day when they had 5 solid votes to end a federal right to an abortion, period. And when they had them, they did.

Anyone who thinks that this will stop with abortion is either willfully obtuse or just not very bright.

[NEDenver]

I maintain that Lawrence will go first.  It will allow red states to round up gay people and pass out felonies.  That will destroy lives far better than just removing marriage, and the cruelty is the point.  Also, once you declare being gay a felony, it’s easy to argue that states shouldn’t have to provide marriage benefits to criminals.  The other big difference between before Lawrence and eventual after overturning Lawrence is the state knows all the people who have been living openly and Republicans want their opponents even (especially) the Log Cabin uh, types, to suffer.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I absolutely agree that focusing on Thomas's race is reprehensible. His legal thoughts are garbage whether they are the product of a black man's mind or a white man's mind, so his race has nothing to do with it.

That said, I do think noting the difference in race between him and his wife IS relevant, because the Supreme Court's Loving decision was just as much judicial activism as anything else the right routinely decries. The supporters of laws against mixed marriages pointed out, at the time, that blacks and whites WERE treated equally under the law - neither could marry someone of the opposite race, so there was no unequal treatment, which is all the 14th Amendment requires.

To that, the justices who struck down those laws in 1967 said, in essence, "Bullshit". The right to marry the person of one's choice was fundamental, they said, despite that right not being spelled out in the Constitution. And given the fundamental nature of that right, any infringement (like telling a black man he can't marry a white woman) is subject to the strictest of scrutiny: such laws are only permissible if the state has a compelling interest in achieving some goal, and this restriction is the narrowest way to achieve that goal. If the goal can be achieved by a less intrusive means, then the law must fall.

If only the Obergefell court made the same pronouncement regarding same-sex marriages, our rights would be in less danger. But as I've pointed out earlier, Obergefell (and Griswold, and Lawrence) are all predicated on a different legal theory (substantive due process) and Thomas openly rejects that legal theory in its entirety. There's some evidence that Alito would likewise be happy to ditch it. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh haven't addressed that, but they were happy to kill Roe, which was also based on substantive due process. So even despite the protests in the Dobbs opinion that those cases aren't implicated, you can read that as "not implicated yet, because a challenge to those cases is not before us."

Those cases will come. And you can't say that "it's settled law" because Roe and Casey were settled law, too. Casey specifically said that states could not ban abortion pre-viability (among other things). Then state after state started passing laws that clearly violated that standard - so-called "heartbeat" bills, for instance - and the Court, generally, just kept refusing to take up challenges to those laws, holding out for the day when they had 5 solid votes to end a federal right to an abortion, period. And when they had them, they did.

Anyone who thinks that this will stop with abortion is either willfully obtuse or just not very bright.

Thank you for sharing your insight. 

- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -

To me, although I lack the belief in a creator - let alone one with consciousness - this line from the Declaration of Independence sounds beautiful and poetic.
But personally I find it curious just the same, that people refer to older texts as holding any absolute Truth.
I do believe firmly that we as human beings (the 'all men' in the quote above) have to ability to grow, learn and evolve and as do our ideas and convictions; Just as much as our scientific knowledge of the world and universe around us and of ourselves have grown enormously in the last 350 years or so.

That's why perhaps it might be wise to not carve any founding document in stone but have it keep up with this growth. Of course one can look to the wisdom of the men (F/M/Other) before us; I quoted an example for just that reason.
But to believe that the men (no females or transgenders there) where omniscient, would imply they had godlike qualities and the problem with that is it's very hard to reason with people one disagrees with - when they aren't so much debating from their political beliefs but from something much like a religious conviction.
Because a lot of people from both sides of the US political spectrum are disillusioned and feeling very disappointed to the the point of frustration - the 'MAGA' protesters/rioters just the same as people in favour of women's and gay rights, and perhaps even like @TotalTop who has lost his faith in the entire two-party system - could this not be a time to critically review the US founding documents and perhaps even redraft them?
France did, they're on their fifth constitution as of the 1950's (I believe) and so: 'The Fifth Republic'.
Other countries like my own have.
And somehow the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does without any written constitution - although I don't think anyone knows exactly how they manage it - or get why that nation hasn't actually faced its often predicted demise.

But as I understand it, changing the US constitution is exceptionally hard - needing three quarters of the US-States to approve them; And never by changing the original wording of the constitution itself but by the amendments as appendices which are just as and perhaps even more binding than the original wording. 

So I don't know of your society will choose this revolutionary path to change things for the better for everyone. Either by updating the constitution itself or adopting new amendments.
But I hope all of ya will. 
Any SCOTUS ruling lacks direct democratic legitimacy - even when the rulings are in ones own favour - and I believe that Justice Ginsberg e.g. with regards to Roe v. Wade was strongly aware of this.

 

For the moment, I'm not sure if the 'Right to pursue happiness' can be - or has ever been - used to advance civil liberties and human rights in the US system. But if not: Shouldn't it be?

To me that may be the essential and inspired idea of your United States, and directly tackles 'Loving' just as much as it covers (gay) sexual intercourse, same-sex marriage and perhaps even reproductive rights - including abortion when that might be the last/best option available.

And I'd like to ask you @BootmanLA what your ideas are on how to change this, how to defuse this current political partisanship and populist/religious tendencies that as I understand is you are not in favour of?
Where I an American I probably would vote Democrat but perhaps the benefit of being the outsider here is that from my sideline point of view, the solution shouldn't come from any of the political parties but from the moderate, sensible majority of the people themselves; 'You, the People' so to speak, not one or even two political parties. 😉 

Anyone else with legal/revolutionary input in how (peacefully) improve the current change of affairs is also free to reply, of course.

 

Ps
I wouldn't recommend re-instating a monarchy like the Kingdom of The Netherlands did after first having ok as an early rebpulic, or France twice before they came to their senses after the second (Bonaparte) Empire;
But if you do I'll happily be at your service, having years and years of experience in being a Queen.
Empress has a nice ring to it. 
👑

 

[akula]

These idiot republicans don't look any further then the nose on their own face. They don't seem to care that once you make honest law abiding people out to be criminals by stripping their rights away then they have nothing to loose by actually becoming criminals. They are setting themselves up to be targets by their actions, they seem to fail to realize that their stupidity in thinking that every one that is not a wasp is weak will be their downfall. We have millions of military and ex-military, law enforcement, computer geeks and the list goes on and on of people that can take them down in ugly ways. 

[boy4you]

I grew up around these nuts in rural Nebraska, so I know how nuts they are. Yes, as we don't fit Into their tiny minds. If it were not for my older brothers, I would be dead by now. 

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

And somehow the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does without any written constitution - although I don't think anyone knows exactly how they manage it - or get why that nation hasn't actually faced its often predicted demise.

Scotland is itching for another independence referendum as we speak. Northern Ireland is getting the shaft from Brexit (surprise, surprise). The question is whether the United Kingdom as we know it will expire before the Queen does.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Scotland is itching for another independence referendum as we speak. Northern Ireland is getting the shaft from Brexit (surprise, surprise). The question is whether the United Kingdom as we know it will expire before the Queen does.

She's 96 years old, bless her. At this age she's only one other Covid infection from the Prince of Wales or 'accidental' tripping over one of the corgi's in the presence of the Dutches of Cornwall away from the here-after. 😈
I think the United Kingdom will outlast her. 😉 

God save the corgi's. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, akula said:

These idiot republicans don't look any further then the nose on their own face. They don't seem to care that once you make honest law abiding people out to be criminals by stripping their rights away then they have nothing to loose by actually becoming criminals. They are setting themselves up to be targets by their actions, they seem to fail to realize that their stupidity in thinking that every one that is not a wasp is weak will be their downfall. We have millions of military and ex-military, law enforcement, computer geeks and the list goes on and on of people that can take them down in ugly ways. 

 

1 hour ago, boy4you said:

I grew up around these nuts in rural Nebraska, so I know how nuts they are. Yes, as we don't fit Into their tiny minds. If it were not for my older brothers, I would be dead by now. 

My sympathies and I don't envy you @boy4you.

But what do both of you think IS the way out of this?  For a real and fundamental change for the better, I don't think that a majority of 50 % + 1 would be enough.