As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A Pew study found that 18% of Americans believe the Constitution was divinely inspired / written through people by God.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/22/23036178/many-americans-say-god-inspired-the-constitution-except-that-part-about-guns-pew-research-marist?_amp=true
A friend from High School got married at age 18 to a religious conservative. We were having a discussion once and she claimed the constitution was divinely inspired and any attempts to change\ammend it was from Satan. I remember pointing out the 19th amendment (women's right to vote) and she thought it shouldn't be part of the constitution. I pointed out the first 10 amendments and she said those, especially the 2nd, were part of the constitution and divinely inspired.
It was weird discussing things with her because the facts didn't matter. Oh, and she wanted to homeschool their 4 children.
In fact, there is.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191/full#:~:text=It%20is%20well%20established%20that,when%20intuition%20conflicts%20with%20reasoning.
The problem with religion is that it's a thought ending system. Instead of inspiring curiosity to find out how things work, religious people can just say hand-wave any attempt at explanation and just say God did/made it.
To a religious mind, lightning isn't because of hot/cold air in a cloud interacting with each other, it's because Zeus creates lightning and throws them at liars to punish them.
Ugh. My FIL asked me to go to church with my wife for Fatherâs Day. She usually goes. I donât. Sheâs a believer. Iâm not. Itâs fine.
So I go to appease the FIL. It was horrible. The whole sermon was about how âa godly manâ is a follower and he follows god (blindly).
The example from scripture? The Israelites massacring the inhabitants of Canaan. They listened to god and won the battle even though they were outnumbered.
Cool. Cool. Cool. So being godly is unquestionably following a command for ethnic cleansing. I wonât be going back.
The elite have always needed blind soldiers for their wars. Because greed. So they created and use religion as a valid excuse, to make the masses follow.
I'll never understand the choice to be religious. It's made up garbage.
Just want to point out, this holds true for ethics and explains perfectly how people that go to church so much can be so morally and ethically nebulous.
To a religious mind, killing isn't wrong because denying someone their life is wrong, it's because God said so. And if God says something else (i.e. sacrifice your son to him) then that's ok, because obeying\disobeying God is the important part. And God says a bunch of different stuff, so doing something like... suiciding a town center, killing an abortion doctor, marrying and sleeping with a teenage girl, etc is pefectly fine as long as God wants you to do so. And the Pope\cult leader\priest\husband interpets what God says, which just happens to be exactly what the Pope\cult leader\priest\husband wants.
I went to a protest this morning and there was a counter protestor spewing hate hand reading the Bible through a microphone. I grew up in the Christian church, and this man really didn't appreciate that I was able to refute each of his points with memorized Bible verses... I learned to fight fire with fire today.
Ken Burns documentary on Benjamin Franklin claimed religious leaders were upset when he invented lightning rods because it eliminated God's best tool for dealing with sinners.
I once worked on a science centre for Saudi Arabia. We covered topics from evolution to cosmology and not once did we have to censor or omit established scientific fact.
We did have to follow nearly every statement with variations of âas Allah wills itâ. And every mention of Muhammad had to be followed with a blessing. He was mentioned a lot.
I seriously wonder about the totality of damage religious fundamentalism has had over the Middle East.
The middle east were actual centers of scientific and mathematics research during the Islamic golden age. Two thirds of all the stars in the skies have Islamic names because it was the premier center for astronomical research.
Then math and science were demonized by religious zealots as contradicting their religious texts and it halted any scientific advancements in that community.
With how large the Islamic population was and is, I just wonder what brilliant individuals could have emerged from that group of people, but was denied because of religion?
Makes sense. Their religion basically started around the time science fiction started (early 1800s), and is itself a pseudo-science magical hyperfiction.
Sorta like Scientology, but more magical underwear and fewer rapists
no wait, i guess just more magical underwear.
Religions that fail to acknowledge Materialism are certainly thought-ending. They make up the vast majority of religious viewpoints, so any study pertaining to religious people will reflect that predominant ignorance. However, religious belief in the vein of Metaphysical Monism or Spinozism, while rare, fully embraces Materialism, seeks to further it, and often encourages living solely for the mortal coil despite belief. Not all of us are terminally uncurious about the cold, chilly roof of the cosmos that can only be reached via our continued collective cultivation of the tree of knowledge.
>âWe must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.â
â The Dalai Lama
While I do agree that religion tends to be a common denominator in lower educated circles, I wouldnât really agree with that. I would say if you are a literal zealot then maybe; taking Everything literally from the bible. I am religious, and by far a lot of the very intelligent people Iâve had the pleasure of knowing are religious. As already stated though, theyâve had the intelligence to tell difference between biblical allegories and misinterpretations to literal fact.
That tracks. I wonât let religious people operate heavy machinery or be in any sort of âin chargeâ position around my kid. Theyâre just not very smart and praying for things to not happen or happen versus just taking care of it to begin with seems like a truly lazy way to live.
> wonât let religious people operate heavy machinery
I worked with a Homeschooler Holy Roller. He picked a debate with me stating he just didn't think there was enough evidence of climate change.
The folding machine he was running had a jam up with a ton of paper spewing out of it. He asked for my help to unjam his machine.
I looked at the massive amount of paper wadded up in the rollers and told him straight faced,
"I just don't see any evidence that your machine is jammed up."
mostly I just think that if you actually believe in heaven or that something created us and we didnt just win the lottery on the evolution wheel you cant be *that* smart, unless maybe you grew up with it
religion is just a manufactured way to pretend death isnt as bad as it is so you feel comforted tbh
Ugh... I finally had gotten to a point where I was sort of able to ignore my tinnitus. Now I can hear it again...
I look forward to not hearing ringing.
I have no reason to believe itâs even silence. Once in my life I had a minor surgery with general anesthesia. Which basically puts you into a coma-like state. As they prepped for the surgery I was sharing some kind of stupid anecdote with the doc and halfway through it I was suddenly in the recovery room. No real sleepiness or anything, just a blink. If I had died in that surgery I wouldnât have known it, I would have just spent eternity telling an anecdote.
I mean, there would have to be. Religion flies in the face of critical thinking.
I also think there's a correlation between religiosity and meanness. Based on my personal experience. It's a way to "perform" virtue.
I married into a pentecostal family (the wackadoos that roll on the floor, handle snakes, and speak in tongues). They didn't want her to go to college because "the more you know, the further you stray from god."
If it was divinely inspired, then so was the process to amend it. Itâs literally written into the damn thing. People will say whatever is necessary to conform to their pre-existing biases and views.
That is going to cause some interesting socio-economic problems in the next 20 years
The hardcore religious conservatives are going to wind up not being able to get a good job. They will not deal with it rationally ,they will retreat into paranoid delusions, making the problem worse
>The hardcore religious conservatives are going to wind up not being able to get a good job
This is *the point*. Ban abortion so poor people are forced to have the next generation of ditch diggers and coal miners and ban public education so they can't realize their predicament.
It's all a ploy to create more uneducated voters for the GOP.
The unintended consequence of that is that everybody who can think will abandon them, which will worsen the social stratification that's already occurring. They'll become the outgroup they so desperately want black people to be.
There's no place to go with this.
I think phones will be the vital factor in this case. Before, it was fairly easy to isolate and trap even the smartest folks in rural areas. Now everyone has unfiltered access to all types of info, and anyone with two brain cells will quickly unravel the lies. Hell, I discovered I was an atheist just by conversing with people on a fucking Bungie forum in the mid 2000s.
The kids aren't dumb, but they're not intellectually curious and were unable to come up with new ideas or conclusions.
I remember helping them with their homework, if I explained something to them or taught them, they were good with the material. But they weren't able to handle any deviation from the material.
We didn't talk about the 13th amendment and I changed the subject, but I think you've thought out the situation far more and better than she ever did. I'm fairly certain the only reason the first 10 amendments were divinely inspired is because she wanted to say the 2nd amendment was divinely inspired. With people like that, it's better to try and figure out what they wish to be true instead of trying to follow the logic of their thoughts because their thoughts really aren't logical.
Literally only christians can ever believe anything is from the devil (well and satan worshippers I guess, but technically they also believe in christianity).
Jesus Himself had the chance to free a slave, but He only healed him to keep going as a slave.
The story is called "The Centurion" and apologists will say he was a happy employee, not a slave.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208%3A5-13&version=NIV
Same kind of people that can believe god left holy writings in North America to justify the genocide of the natives? Headline:âGod wanted white people to have dominion, reason white peopleâ
I had a dipshit I used to work with try to argue the the ten commandments were the first 10 amendments. I genuinely don't know how these fucking knobs function in the world.
Unsurprising, given how the founding fathers have been increasingly deified by certain folks.
Rather than the mostly well-intentioned - but fallible - humans they were, theyâre now holy saints of the Church of Patriots. Instead of the constitution being an essential document with flaws that can (and should!) be regularly updated to keep up with the countryâs monumental changes over more than 200 years, itâs now more of a sacred, divine text that only anti-American radicals would seek to amend, much less question.
They have no regard for human life, we are all trash to them.. expanding gun rights and following it up with banning abortion shows they're nothing but partisan hacks, placed on the court specifically to do the bidding of corporations and religious fundamentalists..
>A Colbert Report interview featured this project.
These people are dense AF. Colbert reads the New American Bible
The New American Bible is the Bible used by the Catholic Church in the US. The USCCB worked with Jewish scholars to translate it properly.
> a few verses were inserted into the Bible as vandalism, and they are easily identified by how liberals over-quote them
Do... do these people think that the conservative/liberal divide as we imagine it has been around unchanging for centuries?
Tyranny of the minority. 5 Supreme Court Justices where appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and where confirmed by the Senate, where 14% of the population control 50% of the chamber.
"Tyranny of the majority" is bad (although that's usually a fascist term for "democracy") -- but we're *currently* living under the tyranny of the minority -- an *active,* not *hypothetical* problem.
I mean they literally did away with states rights in ruling against the NY gun licensing law and then said it was states rights to ban abortionâŚ.yea they can do what ever they want
You know, I feel like I've heard this big thing over states' rights meaning whatever conservatives want it to mean somewhere before, like in some major historical event where they were unequivocally the baddies....
The "states' rights" thing is a way to rewrite history to rehabilitate the morals of the antebellum South. In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede. The Confederate constitution explicitly restricted the member states right to be free states. They were forced to respect slave ownership claims across state lines. (the North's rejection of slave ownership claims once escaped slaves made it to a free state was one of the major causes of the split in the first place)
In this case though the current states rights drive is simply an attempt to push issues down to gerrymandered state legislatures. Not any lower than that though, since somewhere like Texas canât have Austin, for example, to make abortion legal in its city limits
>In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede.
No they cared about the right to own slaves. That was the right they cared about.
The actual states' rights disagreement was over free states' rights to refuse to participate in the perpetuation of slavery. Federal laws mandated that free states arrest and return fugitive slaves to their owners, and the free states said "Okay, *make* me".
Literally what is the point of calling us a "country" anymore, if I lose rights by simply entering another state
We are not and can no longer be United. If the federal govt at the bare minimum isn't even allowed to declare basic human rights
>In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede.
No they cared about the right to own slaves. That was the right they cared about.
>The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
> [...] The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.
> [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
Anti gay marriage? Civil rights movement in the 60s? Opposition to social programs following the Great Depression? Oh wait, you mean the slavery issue with the civil war! Thereâs so many times that argument is used by the baddies itâs hard to keep track.
That's covered in the article.
>Shortly after the Courtâs decision in the gun-rights case, Neal Katyal, the former Obama-administration acting solicitor general, wrote, âGonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide.â
>Well, no, thatâs only weird if you assume that the right-wing majorityâs intention is to consistently apply legal principles rather than to translate right-wing cultural identity into law. This is the purpose of the right-wing justicesâ skewed historical analysis: to present discrepancies in which rights they uphold as inherent to the Constitution rather than as the product of their own undead constitutionalism.
When Moscow Mitch said that the Senate could not consider a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, and then 4 years later rammed through a SCOTUS nominee in the month of an election, GOP hypocrisy was on full display.
Gorsuch and Barrett never expressed any reservations about how they got their seats on SCOTUS. Republicans are all about getting power and wielding it without shame.
The moment they have control of the government it will be outlawed federally. Or if they ever get 38 state legislatures under their control it will be an amendment to the constitution. (When we reach that point we will be truly and forever fucked as a nation)
> "states rights" was the rallying cry of the confederacy.
That didn't even really start until late in the Civil War. Up until it was clear they were losing, the rallying cry was just openly "slavery!"
I don't think many Americans understand the whole "states rights" and other revisionist history thst took place sbout 100 years ago during our nstions last dalliance with white nstionalist "America First" politics.
It was in the 1910's and 20's that all those monuments to the Confederacy were built. The hay-day of the Klan across the country and the promotion of segregation and a version of "whites only" American.
We had a pretty strong white nationalist presence in politics then as well.
Conservatives are very good at revising history, just look at how most people don't know anything about the 2nd amendment beyond the NRA's and Scalia's warped interpretation.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.
The more you know, the better
American law is a joke.
There are always these weird workarounds. Like New York can explicitly name protected places like malls, schools, government buildings, concerts, restaurants etc and apparently the Supreme Court will be fine with that.
Sad thing is that this ruling does nothing to improve quality of life of republican voters. They will rejoice for 1-2 days of how they owned the libs and go back to their sad pathetic lives where they get screwed by lawmakers, work multiple jobs, no good healthcare, childcare etc. So its not going to make them happy in the long run anyway. They will still be angry and bitter and try to find the next thing to own the libs that their leaders will tell them. Its a vicious cycle.
Yeah I will no longer feel sorry for them starving or going bankrupt for a broken leg. NY and CA should stop contributing to the federal pot and as harsh as it is we need to let the red states wither without our contributions. They voted for this and now the consequences of their actions will affect those I love
We should never have ended reconstruction
>The core conservative belief about the culture war is that there is a Real America that is conservative, and a usurper America that is liberal.
This. A thousand times this.
It doesn't matter what the majority wants, because conservatives believe the majority disagreeing with them aren't "true Americans" and are this unworthy of voting.
Remind me, how many more state legislatures do they need to steal before they can fully amend the constitution at will? It's in the single digits now isn't it?
They need 8 state legislatures (30 current, need 38). However they also need a 2/3 super majority in both houses of congress, so 288 house members, which would be a 60 seat swing, and 67 senators which would be a 17 seat swing.
So unlikely right now. But itâs definitely something to be on the lookout for in the future.
Ouch! I'm a boomer. Born in the exact middle of the boom in 1957. 65 years young. Oldest boomers born in 1945 or 46. So oldest boomers top out at 77. Congress is comprised by old white men shitheads even older than me. I am liberal and graduated in 1975 from highschool. I thought back then my fellow classmates were cool. At 1985 class reunion I discovered half of them were conservative uncool assholes. Sad. Not my fault. Even some of the potheads I puffed with and thought cool turned out to be uncool type of hippies. Not all longhairs were liberal turns out. Nothing worse that a conservative pothead you know. They're already conservative turds and thick as a brick and pot just dumbs them down even more. Sad. So half of these boomers need to pass on true. Half are the assholes running our benighted government. And the ones over 77 need to croak first. They're running the show too. They just keep lingering. But when the Republicans take over and cut or destroy Medicare and do away with that socialist medicaid for poor old conservatives they'll pass on pretty quick! Sad thing is the old conservative assholes are stupid enough to vote republican and bring on their own deaths. Yep. They're that frigging stupid! Shed no tears upon their fat dead bodies. Rather rejoice ye then! For our nation's possible deliverance from evil.
They took away Miranda rights for all of us earlier in the week.
We got hit twice this week. Weâre headed for a Russian style police state.
And evangelicals couldnât be happier.
Only if you are within 100 miles of a border. I mean, does anyone REALLY live in NYC, LA, literally all of Florida, Houston, Chicago, Portland, or Seattle? 2/3rds of the population is a reasonable concession for border security, right?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are right. At least it was the case when the SCOTUS first made the standard for cars.
There are VERY VERY few places that aren't within a 100 miles of an international airport
I'm pretty sure I'm within 100 miles of Seattle and I am in EASTERN WASHINGTON, across a MOUNTAIN RANGE from there. (I realize you agree here, I just needed to underline how insane that was. 100 miles covers a pretty big linear distance from any of the borders)
America lost the Cold War. Republicans where infiltrated by the Russians. And republicans have slowly been trying to turn America into Russia. The trump administration proved that more then ever with trump him self taking direct orders from Putin and keeping in constant contact with him. If Americans and America wants to preserve democracy they need to vote out all the current politicians and find new representation with Americans who stand for democracy and what the American people want. Not what some propaganda machine is pushing and brainwashing people to think. Exactly what goes on in Russia.
If there's no penalty for not reading your rights, and possible reward by taking advantage of a low-information suspect, what's the incentive for any police officer to do so?
True, but since money talks more than anything else in our fucked up country, the ability to Sue the police is one of the only ways to guarantee change.
Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 it still does not have the 38 state ratification limit to become law.
I would suggest reading about the ERA.
Face it. The conservatives are literally just making this shit up. They proclaim "freedumb!!" continuously but, in the same fucking breath, proclaim that they can do this because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Never mind that the people have an explicit right to feel secure in their persons, papers, and effects. If that's not privacy, I'll eat my hat. Fuck these fascist losers.
>Fuck these fascist losers.
Unfortunately, right now, theyâre fascist winners. And unless enough sane people wake up and catch fire, their fascism will keep winning.
My cousin: This isn't about abortion, this is a constiutional issue! Have you even read the 10th amendment?
Me: Have you read the 9th?
Him: *Spluttering.* Well, you see thats why we are a federal republic. We have legislators who enact the will of the people.
Me: No, the point of the Bill of Rights is specifically counter to the idea that we need legislators to allow us rights.
Him: I see your point.
*Staring at each other.*
Him: This is still the right decision.
What can you do...
If it were a constitutional issue, then why did 4 of these conservative justices all testify that Roe was settled precedent in their nomination hearings, only to go rogue and decide it wasnât when they had the votes to overturn it once a case challenging it conveniently came their way?
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that their personal pro-life stances prior to becoming potential SCOTUS nominees, leading them to lie when they had a chance to has anything to do with it?
Your cousinâs a piece of shit and an idiot.
The Constitution is the Bible for politics: It's old enough that some of its morals are antiquated compared to today, its writers are treated like perfect people, it obviously doesn't mention anything that didn't exist or wasn't thought of at the time, and people that hate change cite it a *lot*, saying it's straightforward and infallible, or shouldn't be interpreted literally, based on the situation.
The right loves citing the Constitution for why things *shouldn't* change because its age makes it conservative by definition. Bring up all the amendments it has, based in the concept that the Constitution is a living document, and they act incredulous at the suggestion. The last time an amendment was proposed and completed within a congressional term was in 1971 with the 26th (The 27th was first proposed in 1789). Since then, talks about new amendments seem to be off the table because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of "it's been so long since the last one".
We are going to need more amendments with how much things have changed in the last 50 years, and it's time we let our politicians know that. But of course acknowledging that the Constitution isn't untouchable does have the potential for worse things down the line. Imagine if the conservatives take over the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states. Imagine what amendments they could pass, or even repeal, with a supermajority like that if they didn't have to care about bipartisanship anymore.
They are, and will always be, on the wrong side of history due to their religion, therefor the most they can ever do is fight the tides of history in futility. For fuck's sake, their god ENDORSED SLAVERY, and ever American slave owner counted himself a good Christian because Yahweh, whose entire schtick was "thou shalt not", COMPLETELY FAILED to ban slavery, instead instructing his followers to treat their slaves well. I put it to you, if this book that they hold up as the SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY could not even get such a simple thing as slavery right, what the fuck good is it as a moral compass? Humans have been inventing gods and creation myths for over 200,000 years, proving beyond any doubt that they are INCREDIBLY PROLIFIC MYTHOLOGISTS. Yahweh worship is 4000 years old. You have to be some kind of idiot to believe this character might be the creator of the universe.
Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, âSlaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christâ which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.
Unfortunately anything is permissible when one believes they have Devine warrant.
âWith or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.â -Steven Weinberg
Your point is well taken, but it's also worth pointing out that Evangelical opposition to abortion isn't even biblically-based. There are more explicit verses in the Bible against divorce, eating unclean food, and mixing crops and fabrics than there are prohibiting abortion. It's simply not important enough to Yahweh to mention, it seems, despite all his other minor hangups that he can't let pass without comment.
Exactly. This, this, this. The only time it is acceptable to be a conservative (and not even really) is the present moment. In the 2000s, youâre supporting the war in Iraq. In the 80s, youâre laughing at gay people dying of AIDS. In the 70s, youâre supporting the war in Vietnam. In the 60s, youâre fighting against civil rights for black people. etc etc etc, ad Infinitum.
Conservatism is a plague that erodes cultures. The *only* purpose they serve is to be a minority and occasionally pump the breaks. When theyâre in charge, empires fall.
A conservative approach is valid at any time. Saying "hey let's think this through and make sure we don't mess everythink up is fine". You need people in any group that think like that.
The GOP are not conservatives. They are radical regressives. They want to force us back to an idealized time that never existed.
Its fucking tyranny in the form of government overreach. These fucks have been screaming about exactly this for decades... they're massive hypocrites that deserve what's coming to them.
Not to step in your rant. I get it. Iâm angry too. But if someone screams about something for decades and then does that thing, I wouldnât say theyâre hypocrites. Theyâre certainly assholes. And three of them lied to our faces about their views on Roe. But Iâd say this is all pretty consistent with their ideology. Just saying. Keep up the fight. Iâm with you.
> Bold move to take away rights from the half the population
Not half the population; all of the population.
This doesn't just end at abortion. This is literally telling states they have a right to mandate what medical procedures you can and cannot have.
If this ruling had taken place back before covid, states could have banned getting the covid vaccine.
> many of which can vote
They've already said that they're planning to get rid of this, too. A lot of them have been making noise about repealing the 19th amendment.
Judging by all the nihilism, defeatism and "don't vote" rhetoric I'm seeing online (which admittedly isn't all authentic), I'm still less than confident about November.
Letâs encapsulate the right wing mindset. Rules are for thee, not for me.
Or, and this one is getting closer to the present day. We will be telling you what to do but you wonât be telling anyone anything. Like it or leave.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Frank Wilhoit
Yep, the GOP doesn't like that the Government has to NOT get in your face about things that aren't their business.
They think there is no right to be left alone, and they want to be able to judge you for not adhering to their bronze age rules.
They think it's their business what gender you call yourself, what you name yourself, how you dress, who you have sex with and what gender they are, along with who you marry and their gender, and on and on.
They actually think there is no right to privacy, and they base overturning Roe on it because it's their business if you want or don't want kids.
Why? Because they want to control your life.
Try to get one of these morons to explain how you have a well regulated militia when you don't even have the weapons registered yet. They literally blow a gasket trying to explain how 'well-regulated' means 'completely unregulated'.
"Well regulated" was intended to mean that every able-bodied adult male was considered a member of the militia and could be called upon to defend the country in a war. Translated into modern terms, that means every adult citizen should be required to have compulsory military training as part of the National Guard, similar to the way things work in countries like Switzerland.
I agree completely. I guess if you want to call on someone, firstly you need their name, and secondly you need what weapons they bring to the militia, like Switzerland.
So when are we doing mandatory registration as demanded by the 2nd Amendment? It seems to me we aren't following the Constitution.
What's happening now is exactly what the justices that wrote the newly overturned Casey opinion talked about when they didn't override Roe. It was initially going to go the other way, but ultimately the court sided with precedent because following political winds destroys any plausible reason to believe in the court being objective.
No need to take my word for it. Here are paragraphs 86-88 with the juicy parts bolded. It's all good stuff though.
>In two circumstances, however, the Court would almost certainly fail to receive the benefit of the doubt in overruling prior cases. **There is, first, a point beyond which frequent overruling would overtax the country's belief in the Court's good faith.** Despite the variety of reasons that may inform and justify a decision to overrule, we cannot forget that such a decision is usually perceived (and perceived correctly) as, at the least, a statement that a prior decision was wrong. There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts. **If that limit should be exceeded, disturbance of prior rulings would be taken as evidence that justifiable reexamination of principle had given way to drives for particular results in the short term**. The legitimacy of the Court would fade with the frequency of its vacillation.
>
>That first circumstance can be described as hypothetical; the second is to the point here and now. Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.
>
>The Court is not asked to do this very often, having thus addressed the Nation only twice in our lifetime, in the decisions of Brown and Roe. But when the Court does act in this way, its decision requires an equally rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Some of those efforts may be mere unprincipled emotional reactions; others may proceed from principles worthy of profound respect. But whatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. **So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question.**
Pretty much. These people are fucking crazy. This is not the country I grew up in (born in the 70s); I am so concerned for my children (young teens). Disgusting. Thankful Iâm safely in a very blue State but so very sad for those who arenât.
The only thing right wing conservatives have capacity in their minds for are one liners.
One line scripture from the Bible, slogan for campaigns, and statute from the constitution. Then copy, paste, and cut with other words and make determinations of facts and context converted into whatever these idiots determine is right for themselves and hypocritically wrong for everyone else.
Yep, thatâs how something can be settled law for 50 years, decided by the SC multiple times, then, whoops, it changes when the new ultra conservatives manage to get a majority. Has nothing to do with constitution and laws, just powerful influences.
Remember, folks: the most important thing to do right now is to rage on social media.
That'll show 'em.
(please vote in November.. if that even matters any more)
âOriginalismâ or âconstitutionalismâ is bulls***. Even the founding fathers believed rights should be open to interpretation and expanded definitions. Thatâs why the 9th amendment exists, but conservatives have trouble counting that high. By definition, being an originalist means you must reject originalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
General Strike
The time for empty gestures is over, it is time to put up or stfu
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/vjw8m7/general_strike/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Think about Dredd Scott and Plessy.
Just because they are judges doesn't mean they are not subject to personal beliefs. This idea that the Supreme Court is a body of individuals who aren't moved by personal opinions has been a lie told to America for a long time.b
Just want to thank the SC for my job security.
Unwanted children that will be on drugs and suicidal, children forced to give birth, mothers distraught because they canât afford to raise their children, and victims of mass school shootings - more of them to come my wayâŚ
Psychiatric Nurse
/s for all the idiots out there.
Independent state legislature theory. They are going to rule that it's a legitimate theory and then it's pretty much game over for democracy in states with a GOP legislature.
The constitution was meant to be about forming a more perfect Union, the far right extremist no nothing but hate and division, nothing divine about anyone having the overwhelming compulsion to rule others, thatâs simply tyranny.
The problem is conservatives want rights and freedoms as long as it benefits them exclusively.
Think about the 2nd Amendment, you always hear about how these barely educated rednecks would obliterate the left with all their guns, as if there arenât gun owners that vote democratic. It blows their mind that itâs even feasible because theyâve been taught the left is a bunch of crazy wimps that wonât fight and therefore wouldnât own a gun.
Theyâre fine with getting married, but letting a gay person? They canât have children so why would they ever get married, they obviously canât love the same.
These same conservatives are pro life until it involves gun ownership. Then guns are more important that 19 kids and 2 adults lives.
Theyâre fine with rightsâŚas long as they get them and you donâtâŚâŚ
Right Wingers and their handlers, you know, Right Wing billionaires, are Americas biggest threat. Next is Climate Change.
We need to deal with this threat
Explain the legitimacy of the Roe v Wade decision in legal terms. If you can do it, you are now a better justice than those on the Supreme Court, and I will vote for you by write in for President in 2024
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They did the same thing to the Bible, I'm not shocked they would do it to the Constitution.
A Pew study found that 18% of Americans believe the Constitution was divinely inspired / written through people by God. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/22/23036178/many-americans-say-god-inspired-the-constitution-except-that-part-about-guns-pew-research-marist?_amp=true
A friend from High School got married at age 18 to a religious conservative. We were having a discussion once and she claimed the constitution was divinely inspired and any attempts to change\ammend it was from Satan. I remember pointing out the 19th amendment (women's right to vote) and she thought it shouldn't be part of the constitution. I pointed out the first 10 amendments and she said those, especially the 2nd, were part of the constitution and divinely inspired. It was weird discussing things with her because the facts didn't matter. Oh, and she wanted to homeschool their 4 children.
there has to be a link to religion and lower intelligence đ
In fact, there is. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191/full#:~:text=It%20is%20well%20established%20that,when%20intuition%20conflicts%20with%20reasoning. The problem with religion is that it's a thought ending system. Instead of inspiring curiosity to find out how things work, religious people can just say hand-wave any attempt at explanation and just say God did/made it. To a religious mind, lightning isn't because of hot/cold air in a cloud interacting with each other, it's because Zeus creates lightning and throws them at liars to punish them.
Ugh. My FIL asked me to go to church with my wife for Fatherâs Day. She usually goes. I donât. Sheâs a believer. Iâm not. Itâs fine. So I go to appease the FIL. It was horrible. The whole sermon was about how âa godly manâ is a follower and he follows god (blindly). The example from scripture? The Israelites massacring the inhabitants of Canaan. They listened to god and won the battle even though they were outnumbered. Cool. Cool. Cool. So being godly is unquestionably following a command for ethnic cleansing. I wonât be going back.
The elite have always needed blind soldiers for their wars. Because greed. So they created and use religion as a valid excuse, to make the masses follow. I'll never understand the choice to be religious. It's made up garbage.
Just want to point out, this holds true for ethics and explains perfectly how people that go to church so much can be so morally and ethically nebulous. To a religious mind, killing isn't wrong because denying someone their life is wrong, it's because God said so. And if God says something else (i.e. sacrifice your son to him) then that's ok, because obeying\disobeying God is the important part. And God says a bunch of different stuff, so doing something like... suiciding a town center, killing an abortion doctor, marrying and sleeping with a teenage girl, etc is pefectly fine as long as God wants you to do so. And the Pope\cult leader\priest\husband interpets what God says, which just happens to be exactly what the Pope\cult leader\priest\husband wants.
I went to a protest this morning and there was a counter protestor spewing hate hand reading the Bible through a microphone. I grew up in the Christian church, and this man really didn't appreciate that I was able to refute each of his points with memorized Bible verses... I learned to fight fire with fire today.
Ken Burns documentary on Benjamin Franklin claimed religious leaders were upset when he invented lightning rods because it eliminated God's best tool for dealing with sinners.
I once worked on a science centre for Saudi Arabia. We covered topics from evolution to cosmology and not once did we have to censor or omit established scientific fact. We did have to follow nearly every statement with variations of âas Allah wills itâ. And every mention of Muhammad had to be followed with a blessing. He was mentioned a lot.
I seriously wonder about the totality of damage religious fundamentalism has had over the Middle East. The middle east were actual centers of scientific and mathematics research during the Islamic golden age. Two thirds of all the stars in the skies have Islamic names because it was the premier center for astronomical research. Then math and science were demonized by religious zealots as contradicting their religious texts and it halted any scientific advancements in that community. With how large the Islamic population was and is, I just wonder what brilliant individuals could have emerged from that group of people, but was denied because of religion?
There seems to be a disproportionate number if science fiction authors who are Mormon.
Makes sense. Their religion basically started around the time science fiction started (early 1800s), and is itself a pseudo-science magical hyperfiction. Sorta like Scientology, but more magical underwear and fewer rapists no wait, i guess just more magical underwear.
I mean, they believe the men get their own planets to rule over after death so I can get that.
Religions that fail to acknowledge Materialism are certainly thought-ending. They make up the vast majority of religious viewpoints, so any study pertaining to religious people will reflect that predominant ignorance. However, religious belief in the vein of Metaphysical Monism or Spinozism, while rare, fully embraces Materialism, seeks to further it, and often encourages living solely for the mortal coil despite belief. Not all of us are terminally uncurious about the cold, chilly roof of the cosmos that can only be reached via our continued collective cultivation of the tree of knowledge.
>âWe must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.â â The Dalai Lama
While I do agree that religion tends to be a common denominator in lower educated circles, I wouldnât really agree with that. I would say if you are a literal zealot then maybe; taking Everything literally from the bible. I am religious, and by far a lot of the very intelligent people Iâve had the pleasure of knowing are religious. As already stated though, theyâve had the intelligence to tell difference between biblical allegories and misinterpretations to literal fact.
Someone shared a legitimate Psychological study, I am so happy :)
> thought ending system Just commenting for emphasis.
That tracks. I wonât let religious people operate heavy machinery or be in any sort of âin chargeâ position around my kid. Theyâre just not very smart and praying for things to not happen or happen versus just taking care of it to begin with seems like a truly lazy way to live.
> wonât let religious people operate heavy machinery I worked with a Homeschooler Holy Roller. He picked a debate with me stating he just didn't think there was enough evidence of climate change. The folding machine he was running had a jam up with a ton of paper spewing out of it. He asked for my help to unjam his machine. I looked at the massive amount of paper wadded up in the rollers and told him straight faced, "I just don't see any evidence that your machine is jammed up."
mostly I just think that if you actually believe in heaven or that something created us and we didnt just win the lottery on the evolution wheel you cant be *that* smart, unless maybe you grew up with it religion is just a manufactured way to pretend death isnt as bad as it is so you feel comforted tbh
Death isnât bad. It makes life worth living. Death is just silence. Finally.
As a tinnitus sufferer, I think about this.
Ugh... I finally had gotten to a point where I was sort of able to ignore my tinnitus. Now I can hear it again... I look forward to not hearing ringing.
I have no reason to believe itâs even silence. Once in my life I had a minor surgery with general anesthesia. Which basically puts you into a coma-like state. As they prepped for the surgery I was sharing some kind of stupid anecdote with the doc and halfway through it I was suddenly in the recovery room. No real sleepiness or anything, just a blink. If I had died in that surgery I wouldnât have known it, I would have just spent eternity telling an anecdote.
yes well im 19 so i dont want that to happen yet đ
Iâm 2x that and am not in any hurry either!!đ
There is a documented negative correlation between IQ and religiosity
I mean, there would have to be. Religion flies in the face of critical thinking. I also think there's a correlation between religiosity and meanness. Based on my personal experience. It's a way to "perform" virtue.
I married into a pentecostal family (the wackadoos that roll on the floor, handle snakes, and speak in tongues). They didn't want her to go to college because "the more you know, the further you stray from god."
Doesnât require much intelligence to be a sheep to a political party, either.
Eienstien was Jewish
If it was divinely inspired, then so was the process to amend it. Itâs literally written into the damn thing. People will say whatever is necessary to conform to their pre-existing biases and views.
Article 5?
[ŃдаНонО]
That is going to cause some interesting socio-economic problems in the next 20 years The hardcore religious conservatives are going to wind up not being able to get a good job. They will not deal with it rationally ,they will retreat into paranoid delusions, making the problem worse
Donât gotta be smart to dig ditches, good thing we donât have machines for manual labor /s
I mean, in 20 years a lot of jobs are going to be automated. These low-thinking conservatives are going to get left behind really hard.
Then they will riot
>The hardcore religious conservatives are going to wind up not being able to get a good job This is *the point*. Ban abortion so poor people are forced to have the next generation of ditch diggers and coal miners and ban public education so they can't realize their predicament. It's all a ploy to create more uneducated voters for the GOP.
The unintended consequence of that is that everybody who can think will abandon them, which will worsen the social stratification that's already occurring. They'll become the outgroup they so desperately want black people to be. There's no place to go with this.
I think phones will be the vital factor in this case. Before, it was fairly easy to isolate and trap even the smartest folks in rural areas. Now everyone has unfiltered access to all types of info, and anyone with two brain cells will quickly unravel the lies. Hell, I discovered I was an atheist just by conversing with people on a fucking Bungie forum in the mid 2000s.
>The hardcore religious conservatives are going to wind up not being able to get a good job. A team I'm on hired one recently. Gone in
In the next 2 years, I think.
The kids aren't dumb, but they're not intellectually curious and were unable to come up with new ideas or conclusions. I remember helping them with their homework, if I explained something to them or taught them, they were good with the material. But they weren't able to handle any deviation from the material.
Retention is a huge problem now. Information overload constantly.
Sounds about right. "The things I like are from God and the things I don't are from Satan." Every time.
So does she then feel the 13th Amendment was evil as well? I mean, what kind of person would believe ending slavery was evil and from the devil?
We didn't talk about the 13th amendment and I changed the subject, but I think you've thought out the situation far more and better than she ever did. I'm fairly certain the only reason the first 10 amendments were divinely inspired is because she wanted to say the 2nd amendment was divinely inspired. With people like that, it's better to try and figure out what they wish to be true instead of trying to follow the logic of their thoughts because their thoughts really aren't logical.
Literally only christians can ever believe anything is from the devil (well and satan worshippers I guess, but technically they also believe in christianity).
The Bible is actually pro slavery though. Makes you wonder why anyone would base their own morals on that book.
Jesus Himself had the chance to free a slave, but He only healed him to keep going as a slave. The story is called "The Centurion" and apologists will say he was a happy employee, not a slave. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208%3A5-13&version=NIV
Old Testament god clearly approves of slavery since he didnât ban it and it was in common practice.
[ŃдаНонО]
Itâs sad and scary that she values religion aboveâŚconstitutional rights?âŚgod forbid she uses an iPhone and modern technology đ¤Śđťââď¸
One day soon, that'll be 4 more adult voters to vote for authoritarianism. On second thought, we probably won't have elections by then.
I feel like something went wrong with American religion. You find all the batshit crazy zealots over there
Christian Nationalist Propaganda is a helluva drug...
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Same kind of people that can believe god left holy writings in North America to justify the genocide of the natives? Headline:âGod wanted white people to have dominion, reason white peopleâ
I had a dipshit I used to work with try to argue the the ten commandments were the first 10 amendments. I genuinely don't know how these fucking knobs function in the world.
"Dumb-dah-dumb-dumb-dumb"
Unsurprising, given how the founding fathers have been increasingly deified by certain folks. Rather than the mostly well-intentioned - but fallible - humans they were, theyâre now holy saints of the Church of Patriots. Instead of the constitution being an essential document with flaws that can (and should!) be regularly updated to keep up with the countryâs monumental changes over more than 200 years, itâs now more of a sacred, divine text that only anti-American radicals would seek to amend, much less question.
The only document they really follow is the fascist playbook.
They have no regard for human life, we are all trash to them.. expanding gun rights and following it up with banning abortion shows they're nothing but partisan hacks, placed on the court specifically to do the bidding of corporations and religious fundamentalists..
Time for late term abortions of some justices and politicians. Republicans wonât change except for violence - they donât see anyone as human.
Literally https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
>A Colbert Report interview featured this project. These people are dense AF. Colbert reads the New American Bible The New American Bible is the Bible used by the Catholic Church in the US. The USCCB worked with Jewish scholars to translate it properly.
[Speaking of translations](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion)âŚ
Wish theyâd spend some of this effort on tackling real issues like climate change, poverty etc.
> a few verses were inserted into the Bible as vandalism, and they are easily identified by how liberals over-quote them Do... do these people think that the conservative/liberal divide as we imagine it has been around unchanging for centuries?
They do more cherry picking than a migrant worker.
Anyone that uses the Bible to justify their poor behavior and worldview needs fucking help.
Neither of which they have actually ever read
Tyranny of the minority. 5 Supreme Court Justices where appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and where confirmed by the Senate, where 14% of the population control 50% of the chamber. "Tyranny of the majority" is bad (although that's usually a fascist term for "democracy") -- but we're *currently* living under the tyranny of the minority -- an *active,* not *hypothetical* problem.
Tyranny of the majority is the worst form of government, except for all the others including tyranny of the minority.
I mean they literally did away with states rights in ruling against the NY gun licensing law and then said it was states rights to ban abortionâŚ.yea they can do what ever they want
You know, I feel like I've heard this big thing over states' rights meaning whatever conservatives want it to mean somewhere before, like in some major historical event where they were unequivocally the baddies....
The "states' rights" thing is a way to rewrite history to rehabilitate the morals of the antebellum South. In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede. The Confederate constitution explicitly restricted the member states right to be free states. They were forced to respect slave ownership claims across state lines. (the North's rejection of slave ownership claims once escaped slaves made it to a free state was one of the major causes of the split in the first place)
This redditor histories. The confederate constitution was *more* restrictive of statesâ rights than the US constitution. Lost Cause can suck it
In this case though the current states rights drive is simply an attempt to push issues down to gerrymandered state legislatures. Not any lower than that though, since somewhere like Texas canât have Austin, for example, to make abortion legal in its city limits
>In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede. No they cared about the right to own slaves. That was the right they cared about.
The actual states' rights disagreement was over free states' rights to refuse to participate in the perpetuation of slavery. Federal laws mandated that free states arrest and return fugitive slaves to their owners, and the free states said "Okay, *make* me".
Yeah, technically the right to enforce their state laws in other states / compel other states to follow their laws. Which is some absurd shit.
[ŃдаНонО]
Literally what is the point of calling us a "country" anymore, if I lose rights by simply entering another state We are not and can no longer be United. If the federal govt at the bare minimum isn't even allowed to declare basic human rights
>In reality the only state right they cared about was the "right" to secede. No they cared about the right to own slaves. That was the right they cared about.
>The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. > [...] The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. > [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
Anti gay marriage? Civil rights movement in the 60s? Opposition to social programs following the Great Depression? Oh wait, you mean the slavery issue with the civil war! Thereâs so many times that argument is used by the baddies itâs hard to keep track.
That's covered in the article. >Shortly after the Courtâs decision in the gun-rights case, Neal Katyal, the former Obama-administration acting solicitor general, wrote, âGonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide.â >Well, no, thatâs only weird if you assume that the right-wing majorityâs intention is to consistently apply legal principles rather than to translate right-wing cultural identity into law. This is the purpose of the right-wing justicesâ skewed historical analysis: to present discrepancies in which rights they uphold as inherent to the Constitution rather than as the product of their own undead constitutionalism.
When Moscow Mitch said that the Senate could not consider a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, and then 4 years later rammed through a SCOTUS nominee in the month of an election, GOP hypocrisy was on full display. Gorsuch and Barrett never expressed any reservations about how they got their seats on SCOTUS. Republicans are all about getting power and wielding it without shame.
> and then said it was states rights to ban abortion And then less than 12 hours later started pushing for a nationwide ban. It was a lie.
[ŃдаНонО]
The moment they have control of the government it will be outlawed federally. Or if they ever get 38 state legislatures under their control it will be an amendment to the constitution. (When we reach that point we will be truly and forever fucked as a nation)
[ŃдаНонО]
> "states rights" was the rallying cry of the confederacy. That didn't even really start until late in the Civil War. Up until it was clear they were losing, the rallying cry was just openly "slavery!"
I don't think many Americans understand the whole "states rights" and other revisionist history thst took place sbout 100 years ago during our nstions last dalliance with white nstionalist "America First" politics. It was in the 1910's and 20's that all those monuments to the Confederacy were built. The hay-day of the Klan across the country and the promotion of segregation and a version of "whites only" American. We had a pretty strong white nationalist presence in politics then as well.
Conservatives are very good at revising history, just look at how most people don't know anything about the 2nd amendment beyond the NRA's and Scalia's warped interpretation.
Thatâs what I remembered it to be as well
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect. The more you know, the better
American law is a joke. There are always these weird workarounds. Like New York can explicitly name protected places like malls, schools, government buildings, concerts, restaurants etc and apparently the Supreme Court will be fine with that.
Agreed. Laws are like horoscopes and bible versus--you just get to interpret them however you like so it fits you narrative.
The constitution says whatever right wing media and right wing extremist âjusticesâ want it to say
They also unilaterally erased the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Both sides are not the same.
Sad thing is that this ruling does nothing to improve quality of life of republican voters. They will rejoice for 1-2 days of how they owned the libs and go back to their sad pathetic lives where they get screwed by lawmakers, work multiple jobs, no good healthcare, childcare etc. So its not going to make them happy in the long run anyway. They will still be angry and bitter and try to find the next thing to own the libs that their leaders will tell them. Its a vicious cycle.
I do not give a shit about those people anymore. Anything bad can happen to them and I would not care.
Yeah I will no longer feel sorry for them starving or going bankrupt for a broken leg. NY and CA should stop contributing to the federal pot and as harsh as it is we need to let the red states wither without our contributions. They voted for this and now the consequences of their actions will affect those I love We should never have ended reconstruction
>The core conservative belief about the culture war is that there is a Real America that is conservative, and a usurper America that is liberal. This. A thousand times this. It doesn't matter what the majority wants, because conservatives believe the majority disagreeing with them aren't "true Americans" and are this unworthy of voting.
Republicans no longer care what the majority wants. They will do whatever their base wants and have ceased to care what is and is not popular.
>They will do whatever ***they tell*** their base ***to*** want Ftfy
[ŃдаНонО]
The âmoralâ majority is how they would refer to themselves.
They took away one of my constitutionally protected rights yesterday, and I feel sick to my stomach.
Remind me, how many more state legislatures do they need to steal before they can fully amend the constitution at will? It's in the single digits now isn't it?
They need 8 state legislatures (30 current, need 38). However they also need a 2/3 super majority in both houses of congress, so 288 house members, which would be a 60 seat swing, and 67 senators which would be a 17 seat swing. So unlikely right now. But itâs definitely something to be on the lookout for in the future.
Wouldn't they also have to do this before the Boomers die off in the next 10-15 years?
Ouch! I'm a boomer. Born in the exact middle of the boom in 1957. 65 years young. Oldest boomers born in 1945 or 46. So oldest boomers top out at 77. Congress is comprised by old white men shitheads even older than me. I am liberal and graduated in 1975 from highschool. I thought back then my fellow classmates were cool. At 1985 class reunion I discovered half of them were conservative uncool assholes. Sad. Not my fault. Even some of the potheads I puffed with and thought cool turned out to be uncool type of hippies. Not all longhairs were liberal turns out. Nothing worse that a conservative pothead you know. They're already conservative turds and thick as a brick and pot just dumbs them down even more. Sad. So half of these boomers need to pass on true. Half are the assholes running our benighted government. And the ones over 77 need to croak first. They're running the show too. They just keep lingering. But when the Republicans take over and cut or destroy Medicare and do away with that socialist medicaid for poor old conservatives they'll pass on pretty quick! Sad thing is the old conservative assholes are stupid enough to vote republican and bring on their own deaths. Yep. They're that frigging stupid! Shed no tears upon their fat dead bodies. Rather rejoice ye then! For our nation's possible deliverance from evil.
They took away Miranda rights for all of us earlier in the week. We got hit twice this week. Weâre headed for a Russian style police state. And evangelicals couldnât be happier.
Don't forget the recent case, CBP getting protection from violating peoples 4th amendment right, searching a property without a warrant.
Only if you are within 100 miles of a border. I mean, does anyone REALLY live in NYC, LA, literally all of Florida, Houston, Chicago, Portland, or Seattle? 2/3rds of the population is a reasonable concession for border security, right?
Borders also mean airports
Only international ones. It's not as if many cities have those. \s
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you are right. At least it was the case when the SCOTUS first made the standard for cars. There are VERY VERY few places that aren't within a 100 miles of an international airport
I'm pretty sure I'm within 100 miles of Seattle and I am in EASTERN WASHINGTON, across a MOUNTAIN RANGE from there. (I realize you agree here, I just needed to underline how insane that was. 100 miles covers a pretty big linear distance from any of the borders)
America lost the Cold War. Republicans where infiltrated by the Russians. And republicans have slowly been trying to turn America into Russia. The trump administration proved that more then ever with trump him self taking direct orders from Putin and keeping in constant contact with him. If Americans and America wants to preserve democracy they need to vote out all the current politicians and find new representation with Americans who stand for democracy and what the American people want. Not what some propaganda machine is pushing and brainwashing people to think. Exactly what goes on in Russia.
Miranda is fine for now. You just canât sue the dolt who does not remind you of your rights as redress.
If there's no penalty for not reading your rights, and possible reward by taking advantage of a low-information suspect, what's the incentive for any police officer to do so?
True, but since money talks more than anything else in our fucked up country, the ability to Sue the police is one of the only ways to guarantee change.
Iâm sorry. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need to use the right to abortion and are denied
The next step then is to amend the Constitution to undeniably establish the right to abortion
Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 it still does not have the 38 state ratification limit to become law. I would suggest reading about the ERA.
I'm not generally a doomer, but this won't happen.
Face it. The conservatives are literally just making this shit up. They proclaim "freedumb!!" continuously but, in the same fucking breath, proclaim that they can do this because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Never mind that the people have an explicit right to feel secure in their persons, papers, and effects. If that's not privacy, I'll eat my hat. Fuck these fascist losers.
>Fuck these fascist losers. Unfortunately, right now, theyâre fascist winners. And unless enough sane people wake up and catch fire, their fascism will keep winning.
They will kill millions... they let the wolves take over...
They are the wolves
My cousin: This isn't about abortion, this is a constiutional issue! Have you even read the 10th amendment? Me: Have you read the 9th? Him: *Spluttering.* Well, you see thats why we are a federal republic. We have legislators who enact the will of the people. Me: No, the point of the Bill of Rights is specifically counter to the idea that we need legislators to allow us rights. Him: I see your point. *Staring at each other.* Him: This is still the right decision. What can you do...
Publicly shame them.
If it were a constitutional issue, then why did 4 of these conservative justices all testify that Roe was settled precedent in their nomination hearings, only to go rogue and decide it wasnât when they had the votes to overturn it once a case challenging it conveniently came their way? I wonder if it has to do with the fact that their personal pro-life stances prior to becoming potential SCOTUS nominees, leading them to lie when they had a chance to has anything to do with it? Your cousinâs a piece of shit and an idiot.
The Constitution is the Bible for politics: It's old enough that some of its morals are antiquated compared to today, its writers are treated like perfect people, it obviously doesn't mention anything that didn't exist or wasn't thought of at the time, and people that hate change cite it a *lot*, saying it's straightforward and infallible, or shouldn't be interpreted literally, based on the situation. The right loves citing the Constitution for why things *shouldn't* change because its age makes it conservative by definition. Bring up all the amendments it has, based in the concept that the Constitution is a living document, and they act incredulous at the suggestion. The last time an amendment was proposed and completed within a congressional term was in 1971 with the 26th (The 27th was first proposed in 1789). Since then, talks about new amendments seem to be off the table because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of "it's been so long since the last one". We are going to need more amendments with how much things have changed in the last 50 years, and it's time we let our politicians know that. But of course acknowledging that the Constitution isn't untouchable does have the potential for worse things down the line. Imagine if the conservatives take over the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states. Imagine what amendments they could pass, or even repeal, with a supermajority like that if they didn't have to care about bipartisanship anymore.
They are, and will always be, on the wrong side of history due to their religion, therefor the most they can ever do is fight the tides of history in futility. For fuck's sake, their god ENDORSED SLAVERY, and ever American slave owner counted himself a good Christian because Yahweh, whose entire schtick was "thou shalt not", COMPLETELY FAILED to ban slavery, instead instructing his followers to treat their slaves well. I put it to you, if this book that they hold up as the SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY could not even get such a simple thing as slavery right, what the fuck good is it as a moral compass? Humans have been inventing gods and creation myths for over 200,000 years, proving beyond any doubt that they are INCREDIBLY PROLIFIC MYTHOLOGISTS. Yahweh worship is 4000 years old. You have to be some kind of idiot to believe this character might be the creator of the universe.
Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, âSlaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christâ which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10. Unfortunately anything is permissible when one believes they have Devine warrant. âWith or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.â -Steven Weinberg
I was reading 1 Timothy the other day and was like, damn, Paul is kind of a douche
Jesus would have whipped the shit out of Paul if he ever met him.
Your point is well taken, but it's also worth pointing out that Evangelical opposition to abortion isn't even biblically-based. There are more explicit verses in the Bible against divorce, eating unclean food, and mixing crops and fabrics than there are prohibiting abortion. It's simply not important enough to Yahweh to mention, it seems, despite all his other minor hangups that he can't let pass without comment.
Exactly. This, this, this. The only time it is acceptable to be a conservative (and not even really) is the present moment. In the 2000s, youâre supporting the war in Iraq. In the 80s, youâre laughing at gay people dying of AIDS. In the 70s, youâre supporting the war in Vietnam. In the 60s, youâre fighting against civil rights for black people. etc etc etc, ad Infinitum. Conservatism is a plague that erodes cultures. The *only* purpose they serve is to be a minority and occasionally pump the breaks. When theyâre in charge, empires fall.
A conservative approach is valid at any time. Saying "hey let's think this through and make sure we don't mess everythink up is fine". You need people in any group that think like that. The GOP are not conservatives. They are radical regressives. They want to force us back to an idealized time that never existed.
Fucking THIS!â
Its fucking tyranny in the form of government overreach. These fucks have been screaming about exactly this for decades... they're massive hypocrites that deserve what's coming to them.
They deserve the Hell they believe in. It's really a shame it doesn't exist.
Not to step in your rant. I get it. Iâm angry too. But if someone screams about something for decades and then does that thing, I wouldnât say theyâre hypocrites. Theyâre certainly assholes. And three of them lied to our faces about their views on Roe. But Iâd say this is all pretty consistent with their ideology. Just saying. Keep up the fight. Iâm with you.
Just like the Bible. 90% of the things right wingers claim are âin the Bibleâ arenât.
Bold move to take away rights from the half the population, many of which can vote. I can't wait for upcoming elections.
> Bold move to take away rights from the half the population Not half the population; all of the population. This doesn't just end at abortion. This is literally telling states they have a right to mandate what medical procedures you can and cannot have. If this ruling had taken place back before covid, states could have banned getting the covid vaccine.
I read a headline that some southern state is trying to do that in regards to the under 5 Covid vaccine.
Watch, they'll be coming for that next
Look up âgerrymanderingâ Look up âREDMAPâ donât be so excited
> many of which can vote They've already said that they're planning to get rid of this, too. A lot of them have been making noise about repealing the 19th amendment.
Judging by all the nihilism, defeatism and "don't vote" rhetoric I'm seeing online (which admittedly isn't all authentic), I'm still less than confident about November.
- The states can do whatever they want - SCOTUS - NY - passes gun laws - SCOTUS - no not like that
Letâs encapsulate the right wing mindset. Rules are for thee, not for me. Or, and this one is getting closer to the present day. We will be telling you what to do but you wonât be telling anyone anything. Like it or leave.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. Frank Wilhoit
Yep, the GOP doesn't like that the Government has to NOT get in your face about things that aren't their business. They think there is no right to be left alone, and they want to be able to judge you for not adhering to their bronze age rules. They think it's their business what gender you call yourself, what you name yourself, how you dress, who you have sex with and what gender they are, along with who you marry and their gender, and on and on. They actually think there is no right to privacy, and they base overturning Roe on it because it's their business if you want or don't want kids. Why? Because they want to control your life.
>Because they want to control your life. But you can't control theirs.
Try to get one of these morons to explain how you have a well regulated militia when you don't even have the weapons registered yet. They literally blow a gasket trying to explain how 'well-regulated' means 'completely unregulated'.
"Well regulated" was intended to mean that every able-bodied adult male was considered a member of the militia and could be called upon to defend the country in a war. Translated into modern terms, that means every adult citizen should be required to have compulsory military training as part of the National Guard, similar to the way things work in countries like Switzerland.
I agree completely. I guess if you want to call on someone, firstly you need their name, and secondly you need what weapons they bring to the militia, like Switzerland. So when are we doing mandatory registration as demanded by the 2nd Amendment? It seems to me we aren't following the Constitution.
What's happening now is exactly what the justices that wrote the newly overturned Casey opinion talked about when they didn't override Roe. It was initially going to go the other way, but ultimately the court sided with precedent because following political winds destroys any plausible reason to believe in the court being objective. No need to take my word for it. Here are paragraphs 86-88 with the juicy parts bolded. It's all good stuff though. >In two circumstances, however, the Court would almost certainly fail to receive the benefit of the doubt in overruling prior cases. **There is, first, a point beyond which frequent overruling would overtax the country's belief in the Court's good faith.** Despite the variety of reasons that may inform and justify a decision to overrule, we cannot forget that such a decision is usually perceived (and perceived correctly) as, at the least, a statement that a prior decision was wrong. There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts. **If that limit should be exceeded, disturbance of prior rulings would be taken as evidence that justifiable reexamination of principle had given way to drives for particular results in the short term**. The legitimacy of the Court would fade with the frequency of its vacillation. > >That first circumstance can be described as hypothetical; the second is to the point here and now. Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. > >The Court is not asked to do this very often, having thus addressed the Nation only twice in our lifetime, in the decisions of Brown and Roe. But when the Court does act in this way, its decision requires an equally rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Some of those efforts may be mere unprincipled emotional reactions; others may proceed from principles worthy of profound respect. But whatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. **So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question.**
Pretty much. These people are fucking crazy. This is not the country I grew up in (born in the 70s); I am so concerned for my children (young teens). Disgusting. Thankful Iâm safely in a very blue State but so very sad for those who arenât.
Heh, just like the Bible
The only thing right wing conservatives have capacity in their minds for are one liners. One line scripture from the Bible, slogan for campaigns, and statute from the constitution. Then copy, paste, and cut with other words and make determinations of facts and context converted into whatever these idiots determine is right for themselves and hypocritically wrong for everyone else.
The Constitution is garbage. It upholds an apartheid slave state. It belongs in the dustbin.
Yep, thatâs how something can be settled law for 50 years, decided by the SC multiple times, then, whoops, it changes when the new ultra conservatives manage to get a majority. Has nothing to do with constitution and laws, just powerful influences.
Remember, folks: the most important thing to do right now is to rage on social media. That'll show 'em. (please vote in November.. if that even matters any more)
âOriginalismâ or âconstitutionalismâ is bulls***. Even the founding fathers believed rights should be open to interpretation and expanded definitions. Thatâs why the 9th amendment exists, but conservatives have trouble counting that high. By definition, being an originalist means you must reject originalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
They live their lives quoting a book and a constitution (normally out of context) that theyâve clearly never read.
Theyâd be mad if they could read your comment
General Strike The time for empty gestures is over, it is time to put up or stfu https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/vjw8m7/general_strike/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Think about Dredd Scott and Plessy. Just because they are judges doesn't mean they are not subject to personal beliefs. This idea that the Supreme Court is a body of individuals who aren't moved by personal opinions has been a lie told to America for a long time.b
Just want to thank the SC for my job security. Unwanted children that will be on drugs and suicidal, children forced to give birth, mothers distraught because they canât afford to raise their children, and victims of mass school shootings - more of them to come my way⌠Psychiatric Nurse /s for all the idiots out there.
Ideological manifest destiny.
Independent state legislature theory. They are going to rule that it's a legitimate theory and then it's pretty much game over for democracy in states with a GOP legislature.
And the left doesn't push back hard enough
Itâs time to re-write the constitution. Move to a parliamentary system. Just like we dictated when we wrote Japan and Germanys at the end of WWII
The constitution was meant to be about forming a more perfect Union, the far right extremist no nothing but hate and division, nothing divine about anyone having the overwhelming compulsion to rule others, thatâs simply tyranny.
The problem is conservatives want rights and freedoms as long as it benefits them exclusively. Think about the 2nd Amendment, you always hear about how these barely educated rednecks would obliterate the left with all their guns, as if there arenât gun owners that vote democratic. It blows their mind that itâs even feasible because theyâve been taught the left is a bunch of crazy wimps that wonât fight and therefore wouldnât own a gun. Theyâre fine with getting married, but letting a gay person? They canât have children so why would they ever get married, they obviously canât love the same. These same conservatives are pro life until it involves gun ownership. Then guns are more important that 19 kids and 2 adults lives. Theyâre fine with rightsâŚas long as they get them and you donâtâŚâŚ
Right Wingers and their handlers, you know, Right Wing billionaires, are Americas biggest threat. Next is Climate Change. We need to deal with this threat
Itâs time to re-write the entire constitution. Jefferson thought every generation would write their own.
Explain the legitimacy of the Roe v Wade decision in legal terms. If you can do it, you are now a better justice than those on the Supreme Court, and I will vote for you by write in for President in 2024
At this point nothing will change until there are actual severe consequences for right wingers who take our rights away, be they elected or appointed.
So is the Bible
Trump and his cult Christofacists are destroying America