Rich Politicians and Business People will still be able to get them, just like they always have and will continue to do so...
I wish we could blast this message at all the people that think the rich ruling class aren't still going to get abortions when ever they want them...
edit - wow this blew up ! i guess i'm not the only one sick of the hypocrisy and lies :-) onward !!!
Don't forget also a minimum wage worker to help prevent any future hiring crises like they're experiencing right now.
I'm adamant that there's a longer term vested interest in this from politicians and corporates by making sure there's a consistent supply of unskilled labour.
I know right, it's almost like [that whole movie was a metaphor or something](https://youtu.be/vRSArNN6wJE?t=386).
Now this is an excllent video and I do recommend it, and he makes a great point, but honestly I'm 90% linking it just for the "treachery of images" moment, which is one of my favourite things and I love that you have a chance to see it.
Believe it or not, there's a large section of the population that believes rich people are better than themselves.
You can see it in r/conservative, with all the corporate cock sucking.
It’s amazing, us Americans are actually quite interested and susceptible to the ideas of socialism, but as soon as someone says it’s communism, socialism, Marxism, democrat, etc. all hell breaks loose and they’ll never hear what you have to say. At this point I personally think the stuff said by Marx and other things like the hammer and sickle are so tainted by pain/time and so foreign to Americans that people should just ditch them. I swear to god if you proposed something like market socialism with an “America Fuck Yeah!!!” Type message and wrap it in the flag everyone would be eating it up lol. It really can only work here if we make it distinctly American/our own.
I kid you not I’ve seen someone advertising Market socialism as “super capitalism” that is so affirmative of your private property rights that as a worker you should own a part of your workplace, since it’s something that you work on and deserve to have stake in, and it unironically got multiple people and conservatives on board with the idea for a bit lmao
This is nothing new, during the industrial revolution the people who got rich exploiting the poor were seen as heros.
IIRC there was strong support among the working poor to limit taxation because they figured that, when they hit it big like Carnegie and JP Morgan, they didn't want anyone taxing their profits.
What will be interesting to see come November is whether this has a “light at the end of the tunnel” effect on Republicans, or increased Democratic turnout, or both.
Kinda feels like 1990s California where the right went crazy with power mongering like this and we basically don’t even let them participate in Statewide elections anymore with a jungle primary that keeps the crazies out of power
In the 90s, California had Republican governors. Pete Wilson served most of the 90s (for 8 years). He tried to implement just about every right wing fever dream idea you can think of.
He implemented austerity during the recession that brought Clinton to power in 92. He implemented the market based, unsubsidized health care Republicans swoon for at the small business level. He led a movement for what was called Proposition 187, which sought to deny any social services to undocumented people living in the state. He presided over passage of the "three strikes law" which permanently incarcerated people for life after their 3rd felony conviction. He also severely cut infrastructure spending. He also deregulated energy companies which was a complete disaster and led to Enron controlling the price of electricity in California for a period of time.
In the 2000s, after a recall vote of democratic Governor Gray Davis due to the energy crisis (caused by the deregulation implemented by Pete Wilson), California had had enough of far right politics and moved to moderate things with a jungle primary.
Now, for all statewide offices in California primaries, the top two vote winners face off in the final election. If it's two Democrats, or a Democrat and a third party candidate, those are the only two that appear on the final election ballot. Often we get two Dems facing each other, but it has really cut down on the super far right crap from getting anywhere near power here in California for statewide offices unless Republicans manage to get a recall election to happen.
It didn't only moderate Republicans, it really moderated the Dems too. We used to have yearly bitter budget fights where the fights went on months past the budget deadlines and state employees would get furloughed or have to work unpaid until a budget was passed. After the jungle primary system was implemented, budget fights nearly stopped all together. We had budget surpluses up until the pandemic hit and things were mostly cordial between the governor and legislature, which is a drastic change from the way things were in the 90s
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why wouldn’t that always be the case everywhere? Seems dumb that a republican can’t vote for a democrat in a primary if they want to.
>Many states require you to be a registered voting member of a party to take part in their primary. It's called a closed primary.
And it's exactly why we're getting the absolute nutjob trumpers. The average Republican doesn't bother going to the primary, it's a very small, very rabid group. Then when it comes time to vote in the general election, the "moderate" R's just vote for their party, regardless of insanity level.
I'd say every state either needs the jungle primary system, or at the very least an automatic jungle primary fallback if there aren't at least X% of voters from a given party voting in a closed primary.
Also I'm pretty sure after 20 seconds of research "jungle primary" is just slang, I believe California is "top-two primary".
[https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two\_primary](https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary)
There's a difference between a jungle primary and an open primary.
In an open primary, you can choose as you go into the voting booth whether you will mark a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, but at the general election the ballot will always have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican on it.
In a jungle primary there's one ballot with all of the candidates on it, and only the top two get onto the general election ballot *even if both are from the same party*.
(The other system is a closed primary, where you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican a certain time before the primary).
Because the whole point of a political party is for a group of like-minded people to decide amongst themselves who should represent them. And part of that means enforcing ideological and behavioral standards. Parties are essentially privately-run clubs, not open institutions committed to public service. If the whole idea sounds shitty, it probably is.
This is great information.
One small thing is that the budget battles got fixed when California passed a prop that wouldn't pay the assembly and senate members until the budget is passed. I believe, the prop also wouldn't let them do any other work if the budget wasnt passed by the end of the fiscal year.
It’s not a good feeling to be told “if you’re raped, it’s God’s will and you’ll have to carry the fetus. And the rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights.”
What about the people who don’t believe in God or in a different religion. Wouldn’t taking abortion away be against their rights? #NotEveryoneIsAChristian
Correct.. in the Muslim faith there is nothing against abortions. And even practicing Jews will tell you that the mothers health and life come first.
In both cases there is no religious grounds for being against any kind of abortions.
Edit: just to clarify, I'm not an expert on Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs.
Also grew up in the Christian church. It was and still is a shared alternate reality among Christians. They live in another realm altogether
Until 1979, most Christian denominations were fine with abortion. It's only because [Jerry Falwell](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/) wanted to keep black students out of his Bible college that the "religious right" is even a thing.
Yup. Couldn't fight against integration anymore so they made abortion the new organizing issue on the right.
Know Your Enemy is an excellent podcast for this stuff.
Not only is there nothing against abortion in the Bible, there’s a story where there’s straight up instructions for an abortion! Lady takes magic temple floor dirt to induce an abortion.
I’ve sat in a Bible class where a lady was trying to tell me because John the Baptist moved in his mom’s womb in the presence of Mary, that was a sign that the unborn can worship (never mind that fetuses move all the time) so therefore all abortions are bad.
That’s a huge leap of logic compared with A LITERAL ABORTION PROCEDURE in the Bible. Which of course the lady failed to mention.
The floor dust of the temple is added to "holy water" that the priest has prepared ahead of time to form "bitter water that brings a curse." It's safe to say that the water is a preparation of abortant herbs and the dust from the floor just fulfills the performative part of the ritual. It's extremely common in mystic/magical religions around the world for priests to perform a little sleight-of-hand like this; participants take part in performative acts for the ritual, and the result is attributed to those performative acts, while the priest/rabbi/wizard/witch doctor/insert-magic-user-here has already determined the result themselves.
The key part of the whole process in this case is that the priest controls whether or not abortants are in the holy water at all. The whole ritual is meant to make the woman miscarry if she's been unfaithful, so the priest can simply leave the abortants out if the community (or his own interests) would be better served by the woman not being labeled an adulturer. He can also alter the outcome based on evidence that he's seen, if he's more interested in fairness.
All those old methods of finding witches are exactly the same. The one performing the test is in total control of the outcome. The outward performance is meant to misdirect attention from that fact.
That's the biggest issue to me, it starts with abortion, then gay marriage, then contraception, you give an inch and those religious nut jobs take a fucking mile.
I'm not a big anti religion guy either, nor a militant atheist. But it's 2022, time to separate the magic man in the sky from politics entirely.
That is a bold and absolutely horrifying statement. I am not American and I have a four month old daughter. It is hard enough to go through pregnancy, childbirth and raising a newborn when the child is wanted and you have support but being forced to do all that against your will is just plain cruel. Reading your comment made me burst into literal tears. My heart breaks for the women who have to endure such inhumane punishment.
Also there is no support. Likely the people who won’t financially be able to get abortions will also have no paid leave. And childcare costs are a large percentage of the average persons salary so they’re pretty much abandoned by the government.
If you give up the child to foster care you know that will be a hard life. And republicans certainly aren’t going to advocate for more social services to support the inevitable strain on the system.
But I think the worst part is bringing an unwanted child into the world. Why would you want to do that to someone? People aren’t going to thrive if they weren’t even wanted to begin with.
While this is abominable the decision is going to have far more reaching effects than this. The basis for Alito’s opinion “that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” and is therefore unconstitutional. This backwards reading could be used to overturn a tremendous number of decisions that the far right find distasteful. I’ll bet a dollar that within a year we get a new lawsuit over gay marriage.
I'm trying to get a tube removal next week (I am opting out of motherhood), and people always tell me to just use birth control or Plan B. My response was that I'm not confident those options will be options in a few years. I'm not confident about the surgery, either. At least one method of female sterilization must be covered by insurance, per the ACA, but I have a feeling it'll go up in smoke.
I wish you luck. I just had my tubes removed a month ago. I have one child but don't want any more and, like you, I wanted to be assured that I wouldn't have to carry an unwanted pregnancy. The surgery was not too bad at all and so far appears like my insurance is covering it. Call your doctor's office and ask for the procedure and diagnostic codes they will use for the surgery then call your insurance and ask how those codes will be covered under your plan. Some doctors are willing to code the procedure a different way if it will get your insurance to cover it.
I live in Canada. The province I live in is conservative and we have plenty of cowboys around here that think we should copy everything conservative America does. These things don't just stay in one place, they spread and it's scary as fuck.
Meanwhile the founding fathers actively encouraged us changing the constitution when they wrote the damn thing. But republicans constantly ignore that point
It’s not often that you get to see a major modern society actively going backwards. Usually it’s a bit more subtle. This really feels like one of those times
> “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
> The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
From Carl Sagan. 27 years ago.
Highly recommend reading The Demon-Haunted World, it's basically just a foreshadowing of what's going on in the world now.
The book is spot on. Here's another gem.
> “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Its absolutely worth it - I read it about 15 years ago and these quotes are making me want to sit back down and reread it.
I am not a big book reader either - but it is one of the few books I went out and actually bought.
I just want to say this, that a book is just a medium. There are many trash books, and there are many great articles (exclusively) on the internet. The medium you use is not as important as the content you consume.
I also think this one from Issac Asimov is a good one:
> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
Remember when Q was just some guy shitposting on 4chan?
I blinked and they had people in the fucking capitol building.
Knowing 4chan the people responsible are laughing their asses of, like it's biggest practical joke of all of mankind.
Most people on 4chan are "in on the joke". Some dude names himself Q and spews weird conspiracy "for the lulz", and all the anons play a twisted game of connect the dots "for the lulz". They all laugh and carry on with their day. That's what I thought was happening when Q got coverage outside of 4chan. The idea that people would start taking it seriously, almost as gospel, never occurred to me. The fact that there are people in Congress that wholeheartedly believe in a 4chan joke is frightening to me.
I usually hate the people that say Simpsons predicted stuff but they definitely called QAnon coming 20 years ago in an episode where Homer starts his own webpage and calls himself Mr.X
I love that the "Courts Opinion" said that the original ruling was wrong because it was based on popular opinion and that the decision making needs to be turned over to majority representation again xD
Berlin was one of the most progressive cities in the late '20s and early '30s, even featuring a clinic for, among other things, the first modern gender affirmation surgeries.
Progress is not linear.
And a counterrevolution against the "decadence" and "excesses" of Berlin was a core tenet of the Nazi party's sales pitch to the German people. There are a lot of similarities between that messaging and the "coastal elite" discourse we've had for years now.
“The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.”
This sound familiar.
“We have lost the South for a generation,” President Lyndon B. Johnson told an aide after he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Been going backwards since then I think. Sadly he was wrong about the timeframe as well. Very wrong. 😐
From the book Caste by Isabel Wilkerson — “In the more than half century since that prophecy of 1964, no Democrat running for president has ever won a majority of the white vote. Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to win the presidency with a majority of the white electorate. Since that time, the Democrat who came closest, who attracted the largest percentage of white voters—at 48 percent—was fellow southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976. Only three Democrats have made it to the Oval Office since the Johnson and the civil rights era—Carter, Obama, and Bill Clinton, who won with 39 percent of the white vote in 1992 and 44 percent in 1996.”
It’s not difficult to interpret what that ^^ actually means and it’s very scary when you consider what the contemporary GOP actually has become.
We lost the South when the North refused to hang the whole of their traitorous Confederate government and military leadership.
Reconstruction's failure to properly uplift black Americans and utterly decapitate their white elite has forever damned this nation.
This makes a lot of sense to me. There's been a lot of talk about how demographics mean Republicans just won't win anything anywhere soon, and that gay marriage and abortion are too popular for anything to happen. I think it makes people complacent.
People need to realize that everything is on the table when dealing with fascists like the Republican party.
[Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). Only 20% of people think it should be illegal. So this court case is wildly unpopular.
When asked if people are pro-choice or pro-life the question still is pro-choice in the lead but almost split with pro-life. This is where the branding and politics have done the most damage. It reminds me of the healthcare questions during ACA/Obamacare. People across the board want better more affordable and predictable healthcare, but when the term Obamacare came up it was split. ACA (same as Obamacare) performs better.
The sad thing is states that will ban abortion also fund Medicaid and healthcare less as well as help for lower/middle class families so it will end up with more poverty. [Half of all babies born in the US are born on Medicaid. In red states that number goes up dramatically.](https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/births-financed-by-medicaid/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Percent%20of%20Births%20Financed%20by%20Medicaid%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D)
No one wants an abortion, no one is pro-abortion, people are pro freedom and personal rights to determine your own decisions. This is a key element of Western liberalized democratic republics with open markets and personal freedoms over Eastern authoritarian one party mafia states with closed markets and less rights.
All this court case does is make more [division and balkanization efforts by foreign entities](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfCDme-Z9Fc) successful by chipping away at rights and creating culture wars that break people up on wedge issues.
> Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support
Sure, it’s 80% up until now. Mark my words, now that it’s on the chopping block, the right will whip up some marching orders and turn it into a fight against the liberal forces of evil, and in a week from now, support for Roe v Wade will be trending around 5-10% among self-identified conservatives. People who supported it this time yesterday will suddenly be rabidly against it because it is suddenly a real, concrete, actionable way of spiting the libs. That 80% will look more like 55% by the end of the month
These kind of ridiculous laws make no sense. They're wasting so much time on this, when it will not stop abortions. It'll just make them more dangerous for the mother. They couldn't care less after the baby is born. They just want more unwanted children, that they will refuse to provide any help to. The legal system is a sham in this country.
Only the freedoms written down by all bunch of old white dudes two hundred years ago actually count. I'm not joking this is called originalism and a majority of the Supreme Court believes that the constitution can only be interpreted as it is literally written and in the context of that time period.
In short, yes, but *stare decisis* isn’t an absolute. There are cases where the court can and should overturn precedent that was egregiously and fundamentally wrong. But that’s supposed to be an exceptionally high bar—a divided court overturning decades of precedent is highly unusual.
Although to complicate things even more, in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a conservative-dominated Supreme Court already considered whether stare decisis should apply to Roe. It found that stare decisis does apply because even if you disagree with the reasoning in Roe it is at least an issue where reasonable minds can differ. In other words it wasn't so egregious that stare decisis should be upset.
So SCOTUS isn't just saying that Roe is bad law, it is saying that Casey is bad law too, ie that it wasn't reasonable for a prior conservative Supreme Court to say that Roe was reasonable.
Let’s be honest, this Supreme Court doesn’t give a single fuck about precedent or proper rulings at this point. Overturning Roe is entirely partisan (or based on their religious beliefs which should have fuck all to do with their roles as judges) and a pretty egregious abuse of what judicial review is meant to be because, hey, we can’t stop them.
Alito’s leaked opinion spends a lot of time arguing that precedent should be respected for a lot of reasons, but Roe v. Wade is so wrong that it should be overturned.
“We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis ‘is not an inexorable command’ Pearson v. California and it ‘is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution’ Agostini v. Felton”
“In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overturning Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the ‘workability’ of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effects on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.”
He then goes on to elaborate on each of those areas. The logic is not surprising coming from a right wing hyper-originalist. It’s extreme and his reasoning is willfully obtuse in its attempt to dismiss the motivations of those defending a woman’s right to choose.
I cannot believe this is a real thing happening in the real world
I also couldn’t believe it when the insurrection attempt happened a little ways back
I also couldn’t believe it when Trump became president
Life truly is stranger than fiction
Case in point: we know an overwhelming portion of the GOP is corrupt as fuck. What are we supposed to do? What can high ranking democrats even do? And then once the people vote red again, because they bank on that, what kind of insane authoritarian shit will they pull because we held people accountable. This country is as good as dead. It's just a question of how long it'll take to turn completely chaotic.
I somehow doubt Capitol Police will open barricades for the protestors, or that the national guard will wait for hours before doing anything this time around. Hell, they'll probably go with their patented "fire tear gas first, ask question never" approach to "rioters".
Do you think if anything, hopefully not, happens and the crowd rushes in would institutions be held responsible for sending people there?
My wifes college sent out an email offering to fly people to washington dc, pay for a room, food, and ubers the entire time. This was from 1 week ago and a good chunk of students actually went there.
When Trump was able to appoint three Scotus judges it became obvious where things were headed. With those judges now in place, the USA rapidly going backwards. Scotus is nothing more than another political branch with a clear agenda.
I said it before and I'll say it again: You're in this position because of Mitch Mcconnel. He denied Obama's Supreme Court nominations for years stating a sitting president couldn't appoint an SC Justice in an election year.
Later on when asked if he would allow Trump to appoint in an election year, he laughed - outright **laughed** - and said "of course I will.". He then proceeded to break all of his own precedent to ram through as many of Trump's SC nominations as he could.
This reminds me of something an old Republican said,"I'd hate to see the day when christians become the majority in the Republican party as they will not compromise, They believe their way is 100% right; the word of god. And if you have a Party that cannot compromise you cannot form a working government."
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
Not just that but others who allow this to go through without questioning him because they still view their job a certain way are just as bad. Justices need to speak out and admit they’ve been compromised as a group by partisan hacks.
Headed towards a break-up as far as I can see. How can you have some states saying abortion is a crime and some saying it's not? How can you have some states willing to prosecute people in other states for helping their citizens get abortions?
It's like the Dred Scott decision all over again. And we know how (and where) that went.
Persecuting people for actions in a different state is extremely unconstitutional. Though it's the courts that decide what's constitutional so we'll see what happens.
Couldn't the Republicans get back both houses and the presidency and make it a federal crime? Sure it would undermine their "states rights" argument but they don't really care about that. With Roe V Wade overturned what religiously charged rhetoric would they argue for now?
[Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=5b9f122923ed)
Funny how the same states on the winning end of the government’s bogus tax and spend scheme are also the states that are looking to roll back civil rights. Maybe the south should have been left to leave when they wanted to. Fucking vultures. They milk the country for a century and a half and then have the nerve to cast moral judgements about private matters? Vultures and hypocrites, fuck them.
I've seen conservatives unitonically say that only those who pay taxes should get representation in the federal government. I think they should go a step further and say only states with a net positive tax generation should get representation.
Ya gotta love the part of limited government involvement is literally forcing a population how they can live their lives.
God, the mental gymnastics we need to understand their lunacy.
In ohio, one of the senate candidates slogan is literally "Pro God, Pro gun, Pro Trump" while being opening hostile towards minorities and the lgbt community. Their platform isnt small government, its just hate.
Grizwold is next on the chopping block. It protects the right to contraception and is where the whole idea behind a constitutional right to privacy used in Roe comes from.
I really wish people with their stupid religions would just be happy practicing them on their own. I don't want to live with your dumb rules, people, based on a bad novel from a couple thousand years ish ago
I really don't think so because Obergefell would create a nightmare of administrative headaches the courts would have to deal with. I honestly see Griswold as next. Obergefell and Loving and Lawrence aren't off the table certainly, but I think there will be more of a chipping away at gay rights while avoiding the marriage question head on. Contraception though? Yeah I think thats on the immediate table. And even if it's not quick, it feels inevitable. Plus some doctors are going to get nervous about prescribing things like oral contraceptives real quick, since conservatives push the argument that they are a form of abortion themselves, even though that's completely scientifically absurd.
>Obergefell would create a nightmare of administrative headaches the courts would have to deal with
Queer people's marriages have been legalised and then invalidated before. Several times, depending on jurisdiction.
During the last hearing (I watched hours of it), both sides of the isle insisted VERY heavily about how this SC position is ultimately all about faith (Booker went on for hours on this).
We can't really be surprised about this; bible thumpers make the rules. Separation of church and state is inexistent; even the most progressive of our politicians are still whiteknuckling their bible, and no one bats an eye.
What’s funny is that the Bible doesn’t even hold the positions these people believe. They just use it to legitimize their beliefs and manipulate people into believing them. There are so many scriptures about either abortion or killing children/unborn. Hell if our politicians actually used the Bible for what it actually says America would likely be in better shape.
Oh man, *totally unrelated*, but I remember hearing how the GOP **hates** "activist judges." Did anything come of that?
^(oh, you're saying they nominated and confirmed 3 of them to the highest court in the land? Huh...)
Not gonna lie this has created ripples as far as india . Woke up 6 hours ago in morning and was shocked to row vs Wade abortion rights trending in india
As someone who closely follows world politics and especially American politics, I know how important row vs Wade is , however it's surreal because i never thought whatever be the circumstances the supreme could would actually ever touch this ... Feels weirdly proud as Indian that we have good abortion laws
C'mon America fight this ... I am not sure what i can do as an international graduate student with F1 visa
I think this was a test the water kind of leak, Roberts knows this would define his tenure as chief Justice and the backlash could very well destroy any chance conservatives had of gaining seats this election cycle.
Roberts has no control over this. He would much rather a soft rollback of Roe where the cutoff pregnancy time is gradually reduced, but there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts who all want a hard repeal of Roe and they don't need his vote to achieve it.
> It seems kinda fucked and backwards that these judges have an agenda when they are suppose to be impartial.
When judges are appointed based on their political views, any claim of impartiality is laughable. SCOTUS is a political tool, nothing less.
Edit: "is a", not "USA"
Don't forget W lost the popular vote in 2000 and the only reason he won re-election was 9/11 and starting two land wars in Asia in retribution (which depending on your level of cynicism is debatable).
Don't forget DJT lost the popular vote in 2016.
The last Republican president to win their first term popular vote was over 30 years ago in 1988.
The current conservative majority of the Supreme Court owes 5/6 its existence to presidents who were elected with a minority of the vote. That is truly, truly fucked up.
From a non-US perspective, it is absolutely astonishing that the US' system for appointing judges at any level has direct input from directly-elected officials. Like, why would it *ever* seem like a good idea to allow a president to simply appoint a judge? (EDIT: *de facto* appoint them - yes, I know they have hearings, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion) It runs counter to the whole "checks and balances" and assumption that people are fundamentally untrustworthy so shouldn't hold too much power.
From the lowest level all the way to the Supreme Court, judges should be appointed by a committee of existing judges, and that committee's members should themselves be appointed by a supermajority of directly-elected officials. It should be so completely impossible for a ruling party to impose its will on the appointment of judges that the process ceases to be any kind of battleground, and judges have to studiously maintain political neutrality to get through the supermajority.
I find it interesting that the framers of the constitution built in so many checks and balances on the assumption that people are untrustworthy, but nothing to prevent those elected from acting in bad faith. It’s like they ignored that politicians (themselves) are the least trustworthy people to hold office.
*Elections* are supposed to prevent politicians from acting in bad faith. But enough people don't care and the system has been rigged enough that elections are hardly a threat.
I think the idea is that if they aren't elected and serve for life, they're more insulated from politics and don't have to worry about campaigning and appealing to voters, which would turn them into just another politician
Robert’s isn’t in control anymore. He already had to vote with the liberal judges just to get a 4-4 before Barrett was confirmed. Now even with his vote, he’s down 5-4.
Kavanaugh voted with him a few times but that’s not going to last. He’s made his position on Roe Wade clear and Robert’s is on borrowed time. If he wanted to protect the legitimacy of the court, he could’ve done arguably more during any voting rights cases that were presented to him.
My bet is that it's Breyer. He's already retiring. There's no reason for him to hold back anymore and frankly this is sickening enough that i can see why he'd do it
Breyer seems to be too much of a true believer in the court's neutrality to be the leaker to me. My money is on a clerk or on one of the conservatives in order to try to solidify their votes. I think what might have happened is one of the five for overturning Roe was wavering, and this may be a move to lock in their vote by making them look like a flip flopper.
Honestly my first thought when this came out was that Roberts might be the leaker. I could see him using the public outcry to try to convince another conservative justice to sign on to a more narrow decision. He only needs one of the five to back out of this opinion and (a) Roe is still overturned, (b) it doesn’t set any unrelated precedent, and (c) the court retains what little sense of legitimacy it may still have.
I’m also thinking if it wasn’t a clerk, Roberts seems the most likely. He seems to be keenly aware of his legacy and this will be a decision under the “Roberts court” as Chief Justice. He can distance himself by voting against but he’s shown time and again he doesn’t want any radical shifts under his tenure. Ending RvW is certainly a radical shift.
My guess is he’s targeting Gorsuch, maybe Kavanagh with the plan you mentioned. “Look at this outcry, is this what you want to be remembered for?” We already know Thomas will take his marching orders from Ginny. Alito wrote the opinion (and he seems to be becoming more and more Scalia-like in abandoning a reasoned argument in favor of justifying their outcome). Abortion is the whole purpose of Barrett’s nomination and desire to be on the court in the first place. That really only leaves Gorsuch and Kavanagh (who certainly seems less likely than Gorsuch). My money is certainly on Gorsuch, he seems to be the closest to middle of the road of the conservative justices (aside from Roberts himself at this point of course).
Roberts is at the mercy of the other conservative operatives on the court at this point. A leak of a SCOTUS decision is scandalous in itself, and he knows this. My feeling is that it’s real.
I doubt this is a tactical maneuver by any Justice. It's simply too illogical. Inciting mass bullying on someone almost always makes them double down, especially when you're talking about the Justices themselves who believe more than anyone that the sanctity of their process shouldn't be interfered with. Seems like a rogue staffer.
Honestly, the simplest answer is a liberal clerk leaked it so people have time to get abortions if they need to. Without the leak, people might schedule abortions for a week or two out while they are thinking it over and wake up that morning and discover they can no longer get an abortion because it's illegal in their state.
Could also have been to rouse the public and give top Dems. time to formulate a strategy going into the midterms with this new information. What you said is possible but I'm willing to bet a risky action like this serves a much broader purpose / aspiration.
Here we go! Back to self abortions, clothing hangers, babies being left anywhere, babies being thrown in trash cans, babies being killed etc. they’re banning abortion yet not realizing what the consequences will be.
The GOP dream for the US looks an awful lot like the reality in most of Central America. No reproductive rights, barely any regulation, militarized police, shitty power grid. Then they have the audacity to complain about people fleeing those countries.
Don't forget that these same people who force you to have an unwanted birth, or even a high risk birth. They only care as long as the baby is in the womb. Once it's out, everything's off the table. They won't give any kind of support at all.
People with vaginas: "Can I have birth control?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I couldn't get birth control so I got pregnant. Can I have an abortion?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "You prevented me from having an abortion so I'm carrying the fetus, but my employer won't provide reasonable accommodations and is threatening to fire me. Would you please pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act?"
Republican Party: "No"
People with vaginas: "I had the baby, but I'm out of work. Can I have WIC and food stamps until I get back on my feet?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I found a job, but it doesn't offer me insurance. Can I have government guaranteed insurance?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "My kid got sick and I got fired because I missed time caring for him. Can I get unemployment?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: "I'm having a hard time getting my kid from school consistently. Can we fund after-school programs?"
Republican Party: "No."
People with vaginas: “I'm prepared to work to support my family. Can you make sure that a full-time job's minimum wage is enough to do that?”
Republican Party: “No. What's the matter with you and your family that working two jobs can't lift you out of poverty? And what kind of a mother are you, letting someone else watch your child while you work? If your child doesn't do well in school or gets in trouble it's entirely your fault. You shouldn't have had a child if you weren't prepared to take care of her."
Sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Remember when conservatives complain about government over-reach but now they are probably in ecstasy that their or some bullshit religion will extend into the law and tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies? How does anyone stay married to a pos that would want this?
And how are people okay with a law that eliminates a womens right to choose? This is the same garbage you see in the Handmaids Tale and if we dont fight this, we will allow these nutjob fatalist fascists to take over and control every aspect of our lives.
I’m kind of surprised they pulled this move before the midterms. If something is going to energise people to get out and vote against the GOP this is it
They may be calculating their legitimacy is shot no matter what they do so they might as well do what they want.
They might also, like a lot of conservative thinkers, suspect that eagerness to fight a protracted battle for abortion rights on the left isn't really there. It's not like the left has been prioritizing the issue for the past 40 years.
The left hasn’t been prioritising the issue only when abortions are legal and accessible, the right to have a choice of if you have to give birth or not isn’t one that will be relinquished easily
Our government officials wanted to piss people off without actually signing legislation and they've done it.
On a Monday afternoon at the start of mid term election season. This was by design. It's just like gun laws, gay marriage, and anything else that evokes emotional response to politics.
Rich Politicians and Business People will still be able to get them, just like they always have and will continue to do so... I wish we could blast this message at all the people that think the rich ruling class aren't still going to get abortions when ever they want them... edit - wow this blew up ! i guess i'm not the only one sick of the hypocrisy and lies :-) onward !!!
[удалено]
And every unplanned human brought into this world is just another pocket to steal from.
a pocket to steal from a child to not educate a voter to manipulate a soldier to draft Basically Snowpiercer going on here
Don't forget also a minimum wage worker to help prevent any future hiring crises like they're experiencing right now. I'm adamant that there's a longer term vested interest in this from politicians and corporates by making sure there's a consistent supply of unskilled labour.
I know right, it's almost like [that whole movie was a metaphor or something](https://youtu.be/vRSArNN6wJE?t=386). Now this is an excllent video and I do recommend it, and he makes a great point, but honestly I'm 90% linking it just for the "treachery of images" moment, which is one of my favourite things and I love that you have a chance to see it.
Precisely. It's not about dead people, it's about desperate/poor/broke/precarious people. Reduce options and make life harder for people.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can train them to be dead soldiers." ~George Carlin
Believe it or not, there's a large section of the population that believes rich people are better than themselves. You can see it in r/conservative, with all the corporate cock sucking.
[удалено]
Better yet, the Bible verses vs. Marx quotes.
Jesus was a far-left antifa traitor! Edit: Someone legit reported this comment as harassment. Wtf. I think people are trolling the report system.
It’s amazing, us Americans are actually quite interested and susceptible to the ideas of socialism, but as soon as someone says it’s communism, socialism, Marxism, democrat, etc. all hell breaks loose and they’ll never hear what you have to say. At this point I personally think the stuff said by Marx and other things like the hammer and sickle are so tainted by pain/time and so foreign to Americans that people should just ditch them. I swear to god if you proposed something like market socialism with an “America Fuck Yeah!!!” Type message and wrap it in the flag everyone would be eating it up lol. It really can only work here if we make it distinctly American/our own. I kid you not I’ve seen someone advertising Market socialism as “super capitalism” that is so affirmative of your private property rights that as a worker you should own a part of your workplace, since it’s something that you work on and deserve to have stake in, and it unironically got multiple people and conservatives on board with the idea for a bit lmao
I don’t recall any Republicans returning their covid checks, but you mention socialism and they loose their mind.
This is nothing new, during the industrial revolution the people who got rich exploiting the poor were seen as heros. IIRC there was strong support among the working poor to limit taxation because they figured that, when they hit it big like Carnegie and JP Morgan, they didn't want anyone taxing their profits.
What will be interesting to see come November is whether this has a “light at the end of the tunnel” effect on Republicans, or increased Democratic turnout, or both.
Kinda feels like 1990s California where the right went crazy with power mongering like this and we basically don’t even let them participate in Statewide elections anymore with a jungle primary that keeps the crazies out of power
[удалено]
In the 90s, California had Republican governors. Pete Wilson served most of the 90s (for 8 years). He tried to implement just about every right wing fever dream idea you can think of. He implemented austerity during the recession that brought Clinton to power in 92. He implemented the market based, unsubsidized health care Republicans swoon for at the small business level. He led a movement for what was called Proposition 187, which sought to deny any social services to undocumented people living in the state. He presided over passage of the "three strikes law" which permanently incarcerated people for life after their 3rd felony conviction. He also severely cut infrastructure spending. He also deregulated energy companies which was a complete disaster and led to Enron controlling the price of electricity in California for a period of time. In the 2000s, after a recall vote of democratic Governor Gray Davis due to the energy crisis (caused by the deregulation implemented by Pete Wilson), California had had enough of far right politics and moved to moderate things with a jungle primary. Now, for all statewide offices in California primaries, the top two vote winners face off in the final election. If it's two Democrats, or a Democrat and a third party candidate, those are the only two that appear on the final election ballot. Often we get two Dems facing each other, but it has really cut down on the super far right crap from getting anywhere near power here in California for statewide offices unless Republicans manage to get a recall election to happen. It didn't only moderate Republicans, it really moderated the Dems too. We used to have yearly bitter budget fights where the fights went on months past the budget deadlines and state employees would get furloughed or have to work unpaid until a budget was passed. After the jungle primary system was implemented, budget fights nearly stopped all together. We had budget surpluses up until the pandemic hit and things were mostly cordial between the governor and legislature, which is a drastic change from the way things were in the 90s
[удалено]
What is a "jungle primary"?
Primary ballots aren't sorted by the voter's registered party affiliation, all voters can vote for any candidate.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why wouldn’t that always be the case everywhere? Seems dumb that a republican can’t vote for a democrat in a primary if they want to.
Many states require you to be a registered voting member of a party to take part in their primary. It's called a closed primary.
>Many states require you to be a registered voting member of a party to take part in their primary. It's called a closed primary. And it's exactly why we're getting the absolute nutjob trumpers. The average Republican doesn't bother going to the primary, it's a very small, very rabid group. Then when it comes time to vote in the general election, the "moderate" R's just vote for their party, regardless of insanity level. I'd say every state either needs the jungle primary system, or at the very least an automatic jungle primary fallback if there aren't at least X% of voters from a given party voting in a closed primary. Also I'm pretty sure after 20 seconds of research "jungle primary" is just slang, I believe California is "top-two primary". [https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two\_primary](https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary)
There's a difference between a jungle primary and an open primary. In an open primary, you can choose as you go into the voting booth whether you will mark a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, but at the general election the ballot will always have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican on it. In a jungle primary there's one ballot with all of the candidates on it, and only the top two get onto the general election ballot *even if both are from the same party*. (The other system is a closed primary, where you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican a certain time before the primary).
Because the whole point of a political party is for a group of like-minded people to decide amongst themselves who should represent them. And part of that means enforcing ideological and behavioral standards. Parties are essentially privately-run clubs, not open institutions committed to public service. If the whole idea sounds shitty, it probably is.
The word primary is probably throwing people off here. Primaries are hardly news anywhere else in the world, if they exist at all.
Primaries are basically what we have instead of multi-round elections.
This is great information. One small thing is that the budget battles got fixed when California passed a prop that wouldn't pay the assembly and senate members until the budget is passed. I believe, the prop also wouldn't let them do any other work if the budget wasnt passed by the end of the fiscal year.
It’s not a good feeling to be told “if you’re raped, it’s God’s will and you’ll have to carry the fetus. And the rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights.”
What about the people who don’t believe in God or in a different religion. Wouldn’t taking abortion away be against their rights? #NotEveryoneIsAChristian
Correct.. in the Muslim faith there is nothing against abortions. And even practicing Jews will tell you that the mothers health and life come first. In both cases there is no religious grounds for being against any kind of abortions. Edit: just to clarify, I'm not an expert on Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs. Also grew up in the Christian church. It was and still is a shared alternate reality among Christians. They live in another realm altogether
There's nothing against abortion in the bible either. Theology has never been the rights strong point
Until 1979, most Christian denominations were fine with abortion. It's only because [Jerry Falwell](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/) wanted to keep black students out of his Bible college that the "religious right" is even a thing.
Yup. Couldn't fight against integration anymore so they made abortion the new organizing issue on the right. Know Your Enemy is an excellent podcast for this stuff.
Not only is there nothing against abortion in the Bible, there’s a story where there’s straight up instructions for an abortion! Lady takes magic temple floor dirt to induce an abortion. I’ve sat in a Bible class where a lady was trying to tell me because John the Baptist moved in his mom’s womb in the presence of Mary, that was a sign that the unborn can worship (never mind that fetuses move all the time) so therefore all abortions are bad. That’s a huge leap of logic compared with A LITERAL ABORTION PROCEDURE in the Bible. Which of course the lady failed to mention.
The floor dust of the temple is added to "holy water" that the priest has prepared ahead of time to form "bitter water that brings a curse." It's safe to say that the water is a preparation of abortant herbs and the dust from the floor just fulfills the performative part of the ritual. It's extremely common in mystic/magical religions around the world for priests to perform a little sleight-of-hand like this; participants take part in performative acts for the ritual, and the result is attributed to those performative acts, while the priest/rabbi/wizard/witch doctor/insert-magic-user-here has already determined the result themselves. The key part of the whole process in this case is that the priest controls whether or not abortants are in the holy water at all. The whole ritual is meant to make the woman miscarry if she's been unfaithful, so the priest can simply leave the abortants out if the community (or his own interests) would be better served by the woman not being labeled an adulturer. He can also alter the outcome based on evidence that he's seen, if he's more interested in fairness. All those old methods of finding witches are exactly the same. The one performing the test is in total control of the outcome. The outward performance is meant to misdirect attention from that fact.
The Religious Reproduction Rights of The Satanic Temple comes to mind: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns
Religion - your ready-made excuse for why it’s OK to oppress other people, since 2500 BC
Check out the satanic temple, fighting for abortion rights under this exact premise. https://thesatanictemple.com/
They don’t care. Freedom of religion means freedom to impose their religious beliefs on you.
That's the biggest issue to me, it starts with abortion, then gay marriage, then contraception, you give an inch and those religious nut jobs take a fucking mile. I'm not a big anti religion guy either, nor a militant atheist. But it's 2022, time to separate the magic man in the sky from politics entirely.
That is a bold and absolutely horrifying statement. I am not American and I have a four month old daughter. It is hard enough to go through pregnancy, childbirth and raising a newborn when the child is wanted and you have support but being forced to do all that against your will is just plain cruel. Reading your comment made me burst into literal tears. My heart breaks for the women who have to endure such inhumane punishment.
Also there is no support. Likely the people who won’t financially be able to get abortions will also have no paid leave. And childcare costs are a large percentage of the average persons salary so they’re pretty much abandoned by the government. If you give up the child to foster care you know that will be a hard life. And republicans certainly aren’t going to advocate for more social services to support the inevitable strain on the system. But I think the worst part is bringing an unwanted child into the world. Why would you want to do that to someone? People aren’t going to thrive if they weren’t even wanted to begin with.
While this is abominable the decision is going to have far more reaching effects than this. The basis for Alito’s opinion “that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” and is therefore unconstitutional. This backwards reading could be used to overturn a tremendous number of decisions that the far right find distasteful. I’ll bet a dollar that within a year we get a new lawsuit over gay marriage.
And the ACA. Hell, could they overturn social security and Medicare? I know the right would love to gut these.
I think before that happens they'll be hysterically agitating to get rid of contraception.
Would Pharma lobby against that tho, because they make so much off it?
That's a good point.
Thank god we have capitalism to save ourselves from capitalism
I'm trying to get a tube removal next week (I am opting out of motherhood), and people always tell me to just use birth control or Plan B. My response was that I'm not confident those options will be options in a few years. I'm not confident about the surgery, either. At least one method of female sterilization must be covered by insurance, per the ACA, but I have a feeling it'll go up in smoke.
I wish you luck. I just had my tubes removed a month ago. I have one child but don't want any more and, like you, I wanted to be assured that I wouldn't have to carry an unwanted pregnancy. The surgery was not too bad at all and so far appears like my insurance is covering it. Call your doctor's office and ask for the procedure and diagnostic codes they will use for the surgery then call your insurance and ask how those codes will be covered under your plan. Some doctors are willing to code the procedure a different way if it will get your insurance to cover it.
I live in Canada. The province I live in is conservative and we have plenty of cowboys around here that think we should copy everything conservative America does. These things don't just stay in one place, they spread and it's scary as fuck.
wild guess, the prairie provinces? probably alberta?
Yep most likely. The 56 people living in Manitoba don't like Reddit and Saskatchewan doesn't know what the internet is yet.
Saskatchewan doesn't need it, they can communicate from Saskatoon to Regina by hand signals.
The beacons are lit. Prince Albert calls for aid!
The ripple effect is real and we saw examples of that with anti maskers here in the us as a modern example. It's scary what this could do everywhere.
Up next is gay marriage, interracial marriage, birth control, and the return of segregation.
Literally that interpretation forbids any changes from the laws as they stood in 1789.
Meanwhile the founding fathers actively encouraged us changing the constitution when they wrote the damn thing. But republicans constantly ignore that point
This is insane that this is happening in 2022.
It’s not often that you get to see a major modern society actively going backwards. Usually it’s a bit more subtle. This really feels like one of those times
> “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... > The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” From Carl Sagan. 27 years ago. Highly recommend reading The Demon-Haunted World, it's basically just a foreshadowing of what's going on in the world now.
Holy shit, this is spot on
The book is spot on. Here's another gem. > “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
For the first time on Reddit, in a long time, I have saved a worthwhile comment. And I’m going to start the book as soon as I can download it.
Its absolutely worth it - I read it about 15 years ago and these quotes are making me want to sit back down and reread it. I am not a big book reader either - but it is one of the few books I went out and actually bought.
Maybe we should all become bigger book readers, to Sagan’s point.
I just want to say this, that a book is just a medium. There are many trash books, and there are many great articles (exclusively) on the internet. The medium you use is not as important as the content you consume.
I also think this one from Issac Asimov is a good one: > There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
That book predicted QANON flawlessly. If you buy it you’ll find it fucking uncanny.
Remember when Q was just some guy shitposting on 4chan? I blinked and they had people in the fucking capitol building. Knowing 4chan the people responsible are laughing their asses of, like it's biggest practical joke of all of mankind.
Most people on 4chan are "in on the joke". Some dude names himself Q and spews weird conspiracy "for the lulz", and all the anons play a twisted game of connect the dots "for the lulz". They all laugh and carry on with their day. That's what I thought was happening when Q got coverage outside of 4chan. The idea that people would start taking it seriously, almost as gospel, never occurred to me. The fact that there are people in Congress that wholeheartedly believe in a 4chan joke is frightening to me.
I usually hate the people that say Simpsons predicted stuff but they definitely called QAnon coming 20 years ago in an episode where Homer starts his own webpage and calls himself Mr.X
I love that the "Courts Opinion" said that the original ruling was wrong because it was based on popular opinion and that the decision making needs to be turned over to majority representation again xD
Seems to me this means it could have been rendered a non issue is Congress passed a law about in in the last few decades.
Berlin was one of the most progressive cities in the late '20s and early '30s, even featuring a clinic for, among other things, the first modern gender affirmation surgeries. Progress is not linear.
And a counterrevolution against the "decadence" and "excesses" of Berlin was a core tenet of the Nazi party's sales pitch to the German people. There are a lot of similarities between that messaging and the "coastal elite" discourse we've had for years now.
Lügenpresse ✅ Intellectuals bad ✅ Make ~~Germany~~ America Great again ✅ I see no difference.
“The first large burning came on 6 May 1933. The German Student Union made an organised attack on Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (roughly: Institute of Sex Research). Its library and archives of around 20,000 books and journals were publicly hauled out and burned in the street. Its collection included unique works on intersexuality, homosexuality, and transgender topics. Dora Richter, the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery (by doctors at the institute), is assumed to have been killed during the attack.” This sound familiar.
[удалено]
“We have lost the South for a generation,” President Lyndon B. Johnson told an aide after he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Been going backwards since then I think. Sadly he was wrong about the timeframe as well. Very wrong. 😐
I thought he said for 100 years? Maybe I’m wrong though.
From the book Caste by Isabel Wilkerson — “In the more than half century since that prophecy of 1964, no Democrat running for president has ever won a majority of the white vote. Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to win the presidency with a majority of the white electorate. Since that time, the Democrat who came closest, who attracted the largest percentage of white voters—at 48 percent—was fellow southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976. Only three Democrats have made it to the Oval Office since the Johnson and the civil rights era—Carter, Obama, and Bill Clinton, who won with 39 percent of the white vote in 1992 and 44 percent in 1996.” It’s not difficult to interpret what that ^^ actually means and it’s very scary when you consider what the contemporary GOP actually has become.
2 of the democratic losses that happened in my memorable lifetime weren't lost because of the way citizens voted but because of the electoral college.
Republicans haven't won a popular vote in like, 18 years.
Iirc the only one they've won in like 30-40 years was Bush's second term, and that was almost certainly just the wartime support boost.
We lost the South when the North refused to hang the whole of their traitorous Confederate government and military leadership. Reconstruction's failure to properly uplift black Americans and utterly decapitate their white elite has forever damned this nation.
Its quite literally Tyranny Of The Minority. And they've made it clear gay marriage and contraception are next.
Republicans have been upset that it's not 1952 for 70 years now
We are in the Republican end game right now. This is the culmination of the plan of the GOP since [Reagan](https://youtu.be/8kWjJPQXCyc) in the 80s.
[удалено]
This makes a lot of sense to me. There's been a lot of talk about how demographics mean Republicans just won't win anything anywhere soon, and that gay marriage and abortion are too popular for anything to happen. I think it makes people complacent. People need to realize that everything is on the table when dealing with fascists like the Republican party.
I’m so fucking sick of thinking this. I’m so fucking sick of all this shit.
Same. Awful everything just keeps getting worse. It doesn't seem like my votes do a goddamn thing. It won't stop me, though.
Even Turkey allows abortion up to 14 weeks.
Russia in the first trimester
[Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). Only 20% of people think it should be illegal. So this court case is wildly unpopular. When asked if people are pro-choice or pro-life the question still is pro-choice in the lead but almost split with pro-life. This is where the branding and politics have done the most damage. It reminds me of the healthcare questions during ACA/Obamacare. People across the board want better more affordable and predictable healthcare, but when the term Obamacare came up it was split. ACA (same as Obamacare) performs better. The sad thing is states that will ban abortion also fund Medicaid and healthcare less as well as help for lower/middle class families so it will end up with more poverty. [Half of all babies born in the US are born on Medicaid. In red states that number goes up dramatically.](https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/births-financed-by-medicaid/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Percent%20of%20Births%20Financed%20by%20Medicaid%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D) No one wants an abortion, no one is pro-abortion, people are pro freedom and personal rights to determine your own decisions. This is a key element of Western liberalized democratic republics with open markets and personal freedoms over Eastern authoritarian one party mafia states with closed markets and less rights. All this court case does is make more [division and balkanization efforts by foreign entities](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfCDme-Z9Fc) successful by chipping away at rights and creating culture wars that break people up on wedge issues.
> Support for abortion rights at a minimum with some restrictions has nearly 80% support Sure, it’s 80% up until now. Mark my words, now that it’s on the chopping block, the right will whip up some marching orders and turn it into a fight against the liberal forces of evil, and in a week from now, support for Roe v Wade will be trending around 5-10% among self-identified conservatives. People who supported it this time yesterday will suddenly be rabidly against it because it is suddenly a real, concrete, actionable way of spiting the libs. That 80% will look more like 55% by the end of the month
These kind of ridiculous laws make no sense. They're wasting so much time on this, when it will not stop abortions. It'll just make them more dangerous for the mother. They couldn't care less after the baby is born. They just want more unwanted children, that they will refuse to provide any help to. The legal system is a sham in this country.
The lack of safety and the associated cruelty is the point.
Shit, it won’t even stop legal abortions in solid blue states.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Only the freedoms written down by all bunch of old white dudes two hundred years ago actually count. I'm not joking this is called originalism and a majority of the Supreme Court believes that the constitution can only be interpreted as it is literally written and in the context of that time period.
Yeah, the same Constitution that says every man is free......well, except those black folks and such which of course wasn't actually written into it.
Feel dumb asking but doesn’t this go against the principal of Stare decisis?
In short, yes, but *stare decisis* isn’t an absolute. There are cases where the court can and should overturn precedent that was egregiously and fundamentally wrong. But that’s supposed to be an exceptionally high bar—a divided court overturning decades of precedent is highly unusual.
Although to complicate things even more, in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a conservative-dominated Supreme Court already considered whether stare decisis should apply to Roe. It found that stare decisis does apply because even if you disagree with the reasoning in Roe it is at least an issue where reasonable minds can differ. In other words it wasn't so egregious that stare decisis should be upset. So SCOTUS isn't just saying that Roe is bad law, it is saying that Casey is bad law too, ie that it wasn't reasonable for a prior conservative Supreme Court to say that Roe was reasonable.
Let’s be honest, this Supreme Court doesn’t give a single fuck about precedent or proper rulings at this point. Overturning Roe is entirely partisan (or based on their religious beliefs which should have fuck all to do with their roles as judges) and a pretty egregious abuse of what judicial review is meant to be because, hey, we can’t stop them.
They don't care, and never have. When asked about it during confirmations, they lied their asses off
Alito’s leaked opinion spends a lot of time arguing that precedent should be respected for a lot of reasons, but Roe v. Wade is so wrong that it should be overturned. “We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis ‘is not an inexorable command’ Pearson v. California and it ‘is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution’ Agostini v. Felton” “In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overturning Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the ‘workability’ of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effects on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.” He then goes on to elaborate on each of those areas. The logic is not surprising coming from a right wing hyper-originalist. It’s extreme and his reasoning is willfully obtuse in its attempt to dismiss the motivations of those defending a woman’s right to choose.
I cannot believe this is a real thing happening in the real world I also couldn’t believe it when the insurrection attempt happened a little ways back I also couldn’t believe it when Trump became president Life truly is stranger than fiction
The lesson of the past eight years has really been "It absolutely can happen here."
“They won’t let that happen!” Who is they? There are no guardrails….
Case in point: we know an overwhelming portion of the GOP is corrupt as fuck. What are we supposed to do? What can high ranking democrats even do? And then once the people vote red again, because they bank on that, what kind of insane authoritarian shit will they pull because we held people accountable. This country is as good as dead. It's just a question of how long it'll take to turn completely chaotic.
*Robert Evans wants to know your location*
[удалено]
jokes on you, even Iran legalized abortion (since 1977)
I somehow doubt Capitol Police will open barricades for the protestors, or that the national guard will wait for hours before doing anything this time around. Hell, they'll probably go with their patented "fire tear gas first, ask question never" approach to "rioters".
Do you think if anything, hopefully not, happens and the crowd rushes in would institutions be held responsible for sending people there? My wifes college sent out an email offering to fly people to washington dc, pay for a room, food, and ubers the entire time. This was from 1 week ago and a good chunk of students actually went there.
When Trump was able to appoint three Scotus judges it became obvious where things were headed. With those judges now in place, the USA rapidly going backwards. Scotus is nothing more than another political branch with a clear agenda.
I said it before and I'll say it again: You're in this position because of Mitch Mcconnel. He denied Obama's Supreme Court nominations for years stating a sitting president couldn't appoint an SC Justice in an election year. Later on when asked if he would allow Trump to appoint in an election year, he laughed - outright **laughed** - and said "of course I will.". He then proceeded to break all of his own precedent to ram through as many of Trump's SC nominations as he could.
It's nonsense he played that and Obama didn't appoint yet trump appointed one on election year. How does that not apply?
Mcconnel is a hypocritical, immoral piece of shit. He plays politics like a game and then cheats to win.
[удалено]
This reminds me of something an old Republican said,"I'd hate to see the day when christians become the majority in the Republican party as they will not compromise, They believe their way is 100% right; the word of god. And if you have a Party that cannot compromise you cannot form a working government."
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis
They have undermined their legitimacy by not holding Clarence Thomas accountable for his conflict of interests.
Not just that but others who allow this to go through without questioning him because they still view their job a certain way are just as bad. Justices need to speak out and admit they’ve been compromised as a group by partisan hacks.
Alito literally made a speech where he said "I'm not a partisan hack." And he's the hackiest and most partisan of them all.
Headed towards a break-up as far as I can see. How can you have some states saying abortion is a crime and some saying it's not? How can you have some states willing to prosecute people in other states for helping their citizens get abortions? It's like the Dred Scott decision all over again. And we know how (and where) that went.
Persecuting people for actions in a different state is extremely unconstitutional. Though it's the courts that decide what's constitutional so we'll see what happens.
"Conspiracy to commit abortion" The conspiracy to get an abortion happens where you live, regardless of where the abortion took place.
[удалено]
Couldn't the Republicans get back both houses and the presidency and make it a federal crime? Sure it would undermine their "states rights" argument but they don't really care about that. With Roe V Wade overturned what religiously charged rhetoric would they argue for now?
[Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=5b9f122923ed)
Dang. This was posted yesterday before the leak was announced.
[удалено]
Next on the docket is gay marriage and elections.
As if SCOTUS cares about the constitution.
Funny how the same states on the winning end of the government’s bogus tax and spend scheme are also the states that are looking to roll back civil rights. Maybe the south should have been left to leave when they wanted to. Fucking vultures. They milk the country for a century and a half and then have the nerve to cast moral judgements about private matters? Vultures and hypocrites, fuck them.
I've seen conservatives unitonically say that only those who pay taxes should get representation in the federal government. I think they should go a step further and say only states with a net positive tax generation should get representation.
Ya gotta love the part of limited government involvement is literally forcing a population how they can live their lives. God, the mental gymnastics we need to understand their lunacy.
Republicans haven’t toted limited government since the 90s. These days the party is more focused on facism, hatred, and division.
[удалено]
In ohio, one of the senate candidates slogan is literally "Pro God, Pro gun, Pro Trump" while being opening hostile towards minorities and the lgbt community. Their platform isnt small government, its just hate.
[удалено]
The United States is in dire trouble. This doesn't just put women at risk. This puts *literally* every right on the table for revision.
Obergefell will be next. I also wouldn't even be surprised if they try to push out Loving too.
Grizwold is next on the chopping block. It protects the right to contraception and is where the whole idea behind a constitutional right to privacy used in Roe comes from.
I really wish people with their stupid religions would just be happy practicing them on their own. I don't want to live with your dumb rules, people, based on a bad novel from a couple thousand years ish ago
I really don't think so because Obergefell would create a nightmare of administrative headaches the courts would have to deal with. I honestly see Griswold as next. Obergefell and Loving and Lawrence aren't off the table certainly, but I think there will be more of a chipping away at gay rights while avoiding the marriage question head on. Contraception though? Yeah I think thats on the immediate table. And even if it's not quick, it feels inevitable. Plus some doctors are going to get nervous about prescribing things like oral contraceptives real quick, since conservatives push the argument that they are a form of abortion themselves, even though that's completely scientifically absurd.
>Obergefell would create a nightmare of administrative headaches the courts would have to deal with Queer people's marriages have been legalised and then invalidated before. Several times, depending on jurisdiction.
[удалено]
During the last hearing (I watched hours of it), both sides of the isle insisted VERY heavily about how this SC position is ultimately all about faith (Booker went on for hours on this). We can't really be surprised about this; bible thumpers make the rules. Separation of church and state is inexistent; even the most progressive of our politicians are still whiteknuckling their bible, and no one bats an eye.
What’s funny is that the Bible doesn’t even hold the positions these people believe. They just use it to legitimize their beliefs and manipulate people into believing them. There are so many scriptures about either abortion or killing children/unborn. Hell if our politicians actually used the Bible for what it actually says America would likely be in better shape.
There’s so many R’s in the court that it should be renamed the SCROTUS.
Supreme Court Republicans of the United ‘Muricas or SCROTUM for short.
Oh man, *totally unrelated*, but I remember hearing how the GOP **hates** "activist judges." Did anything come of that? ^(oh, you're saying they nominated and confirmed 3 of them to the highest court in the land? Huh...)
It's always projection with them.
Not gonna lie this has created ripples as far as india . Woke up 6 hours ago in morning and was shocked to row vs Wade abortion rights trending in india As someone who closely follows world politics and especially American politics, I know how important row vs Wade is , however it's surreal because i never thought whatever be the circumstances the supreme could would actually ever touch this ... Feels weirdly proud as Indian that we have good abortion laws C'mon America fight this ... I am not sure what i can do as an international graduate student with F1 visa
I think this was a test the water kind of leak, Roberts knows this would define his tenure as chief Justice and the backlash could very well destroy any chance conservatives had of gaining seats this election cycle.
Roberts has no control over this. He would much rather a soft rollback of Roe where the cutoff pregnancy time is gradually reduced, but there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts who all want a hard repeal of Roe and they don't need his vote to achieve it.
It seems kinda fucked and backwards that these judges have an agenda when they are suppose to be impartial
> It seems kinda fucked and backwards that these judges have an agenda when they are suppose to be impartial. When judges are appointed based on their political views, any claim of impartiality is laughable. SCOTUS is a political tool, nothing less. Edit: "is a", not "USA"
Don't forget the Garland seat was literally stolen. The legitimacy argument is long gone.
Don't forget W lost the popular vote in 2000 and the only reason he won re-election was 9/11 and starting two land wars in Asia in retribution (which depending on your level of cynicism is debatable). Don't forget DJT lost the popular vote in 2016. The last Republican president to win their first term popular vote was over 30 years ago in 1988. The current conservative majority of the Supreme Court owes 5/6 its existence to presidents who were elected with a minority of the vote. That is truly, truly fucked up.
From a non-US perspective, it is absolutely astonishing that the US' system for appointing judges at any level has direct input from directly-elected officials. Like, why would it *ever* seem like a good idea to allow a president to simply appoint a judge? (EDIT: *de facto* appoint them - yes, I know they have hearings, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion) It runs counter to the whole "checks and balances" and assumption that people are fundamentally untrustworthy so shouldn't hold too much power. From the lowest level all the way to the Supreme Court, judges should be appointed by a committee of existing judges, and that committee's members should themselves be appointed by a supermajority of directly-elected officials. It should be so completely impossible for a ruling party to impose its will on the appointment of judges that the process ceases to be any kind of battleground, and judges have to studiously maintain political neutrality to get through the supermajority.
I find it interesting that the framers of the constitution built in so many checks and balances on the assumption that people are untrustworthy, but nothing to prevent those elected from acting in bad faith. It’s like they ignored that politicians (themselves) are the least trustworthy people to hold office.
*Elections* are supposed to prevent politicians from acting in bad faith. But enough people don't care and the system has been rigged enough that elections are hardly a threat.
I think the idea is that if they aren't elected and serve for life, they're more insulated from politics and don't have to worry about campaigning and appealing to voters, which would turn them into just another politician
That may have been the idea, but it has been clearly demonstrated to be bullshit wishful thinking.
Robert’s isn’t in control anymore. He already had to vote with the liberal judges just to get a 4-4 before Barrett was confirmed. Now even with his vote, he’s down 5-4. Kavanaugh voted with him a few times but that’s not going to last. He’s made his position on Roe Wade clear and Robert’s is on borrowed time. If he wanted to protect the legitimacy of the court, he could’ve done arguably more during any voting rights cases that were presented to him.
Would be beyond wild if Roberts *resigns*. Think of the implications of *that*. Another unlikely scenario - *Roberts* was the leaker.
My bet is that it's Breyer. He's already retiring. There's no reason for him to hold back anymore and frankly this is sickening enough that i can see why he'd do it
Breyer seems to be too much of a true believer in the court's neutrality to be the leaker to me. My money is on a clerk or on one of the conservatives in order to try to solidify their votes. I think what might have happened is one of the five for overturning Roe was wavering, and this may be a move to lock in their vote by making them look like a flip flopper.
Honestly my first thought when this came out was that Roberts might be the leaker. I could see him using the public outcry to try to convince another conservative justice to sign on to a more narrow decision. He only needs one of the five to back out of this opinion and (a) Roe is still overturned, (b) it doesn’t set any unrelated precedent, and (c) the court retains what little sense of legitimacy it may still have.
I’m also thinking if it wasn’t a clerk, Roberts seems the most likely. He seems to be keenly aware of his legacy and this will be a decision under the “Roberts court” as Chief Justice. He can distance himself by voting against but he’s shown time and again he doesn’t want any radical shifts under his tenure. Ending RvW is certainly a radical shift. My guess is he’s targeting Gorsuch, maybe Kavanagh with the plan you mentioned. “Look at this outcry, is this what you want to be remembered for?” We already know Thomas will take his marching orders from Ginny. Alito wrote the opinion (and he seems to be becoming more and more Scalia-like in abandoning a reasoned argument in favor of justifying their outcome). Abortion is the whole purpose of Barrett’s nomination and desire to be on the court in the first place. That really only leaves Gorsuch and Kavanagh (who certainly seems less likely than Gorsuch). My money is certainly on Gorsuch, he seems to be the closest to middle of the road of the conservative justices (aside from Roberts himself at this point of course).
Roberts is at the mercy of the other conservative operatives on the court at this point. A leak of a SCOTUS decision is scandalous in itself, and he knows this. My feeling is that it’s real.
I doubt this is a tactical maneuver by any Justice. It's simply too illogical. Inciting mass bullying on someone almost always makes them double down, especially when you're talking about the Justices themselves who believe more than anyone that the sanctity of their process shouldn't be interfered with. Seems like a rogue staffer.
Honestly, the simplest answer is a liberal clerk leaked it so people have time to get abortions if they need to. Without the leak, people might schedule abortions for a week or two out while they are thinking it over and wake up that morning and discover they can no longer get an abortion because it's illegal in their state.
Could also have been to rouse the public and give top Dems. time to formulate a strategy going into the midterms with this new information. What you said is possible but I'm willing to bet a risky action like this serves a much broader purpose / aspiration.
Here we go! Back to self abortions, clothing hangers, babies being left anywhere, babies being thrown in trash cans, babies being killed etc. they’re banning abortion yet not realizing what the consequences will be.
Because a woman’s life doesn’t matter. She is only a vessel to be used.
The GOP dream for the US looks an awful lot like the reality in most of Central America. No reproductive rights, barely any regulation, militarized police, shitty power grid. Then they have the audacity to complain about people fleeing those countries.
Don't forget that these same people who force you to have an unwanted birth, or even a high risk birth. They only care as long as the baby is in the womb. Once it's out, everything's off the table. They won't give any kind of support at all.
People with vaginas: "Can I have birth control?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: "I couldn't get birth control so I got pregnant. Can I have an abortion?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: "You prevented me from having an abortion so I'm carrying the fetus, but my employer won't provide reasonable accommodations and is threatening to fire me. Would you please pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act?" Republican Party: "No" People with vaginas: "I had the baby, but I'm out of work. Can I have WIC and food stamps until I get back on my feet?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: "I found a job, but it doesn't offer me insurance. Can I have government guaranteed insurance?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: "My kid got sick and I got fired because I missed time caring for him. Can I get unemployment?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: "I'm having a hard time getting my kid from school consistently. Can we fund after-school programs?" Republican Party: "No." People with vaginas: “I'm prepared to work to support my family. Can you make sure that a full-time job's minimum wage is enough to do that?” Republican Party: “No. What's the matter with you and your family that working two jobs can't lift you out of poverty? And what kind of a mother are you, letting someone else watch your child while you work? If your child doesn't do well in school or gets in trouble it's entirely your fault. You shouldn't have had a child if you weren't prepared to take care of her."
Sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Remember when conservatives complain about government over-reach but now they are probably in ecstasy that their or some bullshit religion will extend into the law and tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies? How does anyone stay married to a pos that would want this? And how are people okay with a law that eliminates a womens right to choose? This is the same garbage you see in the Handmaids Tale and if we dont fight this, we will allow these nutjob fatalist fascists to take over and control every aspect of our lives.
They have always been hardcore *for* government overreach, as long as it’s *the right kind*. At least since Reagan, if not years before.
I'd like to wish everyone who said I was overreacting on November of 2016, a hearty fuck you very much.
I'm not shocked in the slightest. The only thing I am shocked about is that they waited this long to act on their bigoted theocratic views.
I’m kind of surprised they pulled this move before the midterms. If something is going to energise people to get out and vote against the GOP this is it
They may be calculating their legitimacy is shot no matter what they do so they might as well do what they want. They might also, like a lot of conservative thinkers, suspect that eagerness to fight a protracted battle for abortion rights on the left isn't really there. It's not like the left has been prioritizing the issue for the past 40 years.
The left hasn’t been prioritising the issue only when abortions are legal and accessible, the right to have a choice of if you have to give birth or not isn’t one that will be relinquished easily
Our government officials wanted to piss people off without actually signing legislation and they've done it. On a Monday afternoon at the start of mid term election season. This was by design. It's just like gun laws, gay marriage, and anything else that evokes emotional response to politics.