Gromnir

am thinking most people in the US look to what is happening in russia when protesters dare to question the special military operation and those democracy loving americans are appalled. people have even been arrested and jailed for holding up blank signs in moscow, st. petersburg and elsewhere. thank goodness the US is different than russia, eh? The Year Montana Rounded Up Citizens for Shooting Off Their Mouths "Some 200 people were arrested, and approximately 125 people went to trial, under the Montana Sedition Law, which criminalized nearly everything said or written against the American government and its conduct when it passed in February 1918. The penalties--a maximum of 10-to-20 years in prison and up to a $20,000 fine--were tough, and the pressure on “disloyal” citizens was relentless. The vast majority of people were rounded up for casual statements, off-the-cuff remarks deemed pro-German or anti-American. Citizens turned against one another, joining “patriotic” organizations like the Montana Loyalty League with its stated goal of keeping the Treasure State from “going over body and soul to the Kaiser.”" and am thinking nobody would be surprised by a few o' the more racist state laws passed democratic in states after the civil war. Black Codes In South Carolina, a law prohibited Black people from holding any occupation other than farmer or servant unless they paid an annual tax of $10 to $100. This provision hit free Black people already living in Charleston and former slave artisans especially hard. In both states, Black people were given heavy penalties for vagrancy, including forced plantation labor in some cases. ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920) California led the way for fifteen states to pass legislation preventing “aliens ineligible to citizenship” from owning land. Although occasionally used against other Asians, these laws were directly aimed at Japanese immigrants, who were perceived as gaining undue economic power through agricultural holdings. Legislation using the words “Asian” or “Japanese” would clearly be unconstitutional, hence the circumlocution. Violators would have their property revert to control by the state. But at least some Japanese manage to evade the law, and the legislature moved in 1920 to strengthen its provisions as well as prohibit the practice of immigrant Japanese (as guardians) placing land in the legal hands of their citizen children. ... we could go on and on and on. am gonna hazard the core disconnect here in the US, and in much o' the west, is we are taught democracy is the source o' freedom and rights. is sooooooo not true. the majority is all too quick to blame their problems on them and they. is always a few skeevy politicians trying to take advantage o' the greed and pettiness which is common in the human animal and our democratic republic makes it all too easy for those politicians to successful promote laws which ensure they have less rights. any government, by its very nature, places limits on liberty. needs be a monopoly on violence for a government to even exist-- day 1 and already liberties is being limited. democracy makes it so the majority chooses whose rights are most important and which o' those rights deserve protection. you don't need much imagination to guess what happens when the me and mine majority decides who should benefit from the efforts o' a working democratic republic, eh? the bill of rights, and many o' the amendments, represent those rights Americans has set aside as too important to leave to democracy. the Constitution, sans the amendments, grants almost no rights to Americans, but instead focuses on the structure o' a democratic republic the founders believed would avoid the tyranny of the majority which plagued athenian democracy. J. alito, whose questionable history approach is already being challenged by many, has us look at the history and traditions o' the US at the time a law were passed to decide which rights is fundamental but not enumerated in the Constitution. is a questionable approach for many reasons, but as we stated earlier, roe and other privacy rights is linked to a penumbra/gestalt o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. is understandable why a considerable % o' the nation's women, ethnic & religious minorities and political/social undesirables is unnerved by the realization substantive due process rights need by reduced in a crucible based on values o' the majority o' Americans in 1791 and 1868. for democracy to work as envisioned by the founders, you need an informed and educated electorate. the war on crt and wokeism in classrooms across the country, along with the internet and cable tv networks making it possible for americans to only hear the news with which they already agree, makes an educated and informed electorate less likely than were possible ten or twenty years past. so we change the rules regarding substantive due process and count on the people in louisiana, florida and texas to look to the better angels of their nature? can't guess what could go wrong for people who were not favored by tradition and history in 1791 and 1868. as already stated, overturning roe as J. alito is trying to do ain't gonna result in an overnight apocalypse for american women, but am thinking most o' the freedom loving americans who is constant railing 'bout their rights is in for rude awakenings... though as one might expect, minorities and women is gonna be taking the brunt o' the pain. no surprise there, eh? is a continuation o' the history and tradition o' democracy at work in the US. HA! Good Fun!

vegas has excellent restaurant options, arguable challenging new york, san francisco, chicago and new orleans for the title o' best US food city. we don't gamble and most vegas shows ain't our thing, but am admitting vegas is worth the trip for culinary adventurers. HA! Good Fun! ps our actual favorite destination for dining experiences in the western hemisphere is mexico city which also turns out to be one o' the cheaper options for high-end dining. typical we go to ixtapa when we visit mexico, but from there we inevitable make the trip to mexico city (a full day's drive) to indulge our gastronomical needs.

Esper: Stephen Miller called for a "quarter-million troops" to respond to migrant caravan given the pause before "ridiculous," am betting a different and more colorful adjective were used to describe miller's plan. speaking o' speculation, Ted Cruz Speculates Clerk of Sonia Sotomayor 'Most Likely' Leaked Roe Draft so, w/o proof, a US senator public suggests a clerk o' J. Sotomayor were responsible for the leaked opinion? HA! Good Fun!

am embarrassed to reveal the joke were ruined 'cause we were aware hellman's as a commercial product got its start in 1913 ny. guy named hellman were a german (austrian?) immigrant working in a manhattan deli when he came up with his mayo recipe/formula. the hellamans brand didn't make it to the uk until the 1960s btw, though we don't know the exact year. what kinda person remembers the origins o' a popular US mayo brand? ... we can also tell you why hellman's is sold as best foods brand west o' the rockies. *sigh* HA! Good Fun!

hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights. converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc. that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted. such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize? as should be obvious by now, Gromnir is not a fan o' roe from a legal pov. there has never been a decent consensus Court explanation as to what were the basis for a right to abortion. weak. however, the manner in which J. alito dismantles the abortion protection in his draft opinion is placing numerous other implied fundamental rights w/i reach o' termination with naught but a suspect history and tradition analysis offering any kinda valid argument for their maintenance. abortion is getting all the attention at the moment, but all those misinformed folks who did rage for the past few years 'cause o' how the government, those jack-booted thugs, were trampling on their god given Constitutional rights by requiring patrons to don masks in the local piggly wiggly should be livid with the roe opinion by alito. most o' the rights the maga crowd believes they is entitled to don't actual exist, but the roe opinion puts at risk a whole lotta rights they do in fact enjoy 'cause the namby-pamby activist Justices o' the past created substantive due process rights and implied rights which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. is a whole lotta stoopid and misinformation guiding the current debate. any bets on whether fox news corrects the misapprehensions o' their audience? HA! Good Fun!

is some curious conflating o' the religious right and libertarians going on here which is odd. regardless, none o' these groups is monolithic or homogenized, although evangelicals is arguable one o' the more polarized/radicalized voting groups, which is precise why the gop caters to their demands. is perhaps unfair to him, but guard dog is a useful example o' the libertarian who embraces alt-right radio talking points and conspiracies, but am doubting many is gonna suggest his opinions is motivated by a fear o' brown people. am also doubtful gd sees himself as a poster child for the religious right values. the libertarian ideology is most often linked to a distrust o' government, which is a quality shared by the minorities some is suggesting is the real target o' libertarian angst. the above linked politico piece which seeks to describe the origins o' the religious right does indeed mention those catholics who were opposed to roe, but curious dismisses their significance, as if those folks disappeared. catholics voted democrat overwhelming until roe and even post roe it took a few years to see serious changes in voting patterns in part 'cause it were only catholic women who appeared invested in the abortion issue. took a while for catholic men to take their wives, sisters and daughters serious? please note, as o' 2014, same year as the politico article linked, catholic represented 20.8% o' the US population, and evangelical christians accounted for 25.4%. the thing is ~50% o' catholics were able to look past abortion and vote for biden instead o' trump. better than 75% o' evangelicals voted for trump in 2020... though that were actual down from better than 80% in 2016. we also posted a link to a rolling stone article in this thread, a few times, which sought to explain evangelical support o' trump. is ez to forget how evangelicals were part o' the dissatisfied working class americans who helped get obama elected 'cause while they likely were harboring the kinda mundane bigotry so prevalent 'mongst americans, those folks were even more angry with those they perceived as traditional politicians. the thing which kinda shocked us 'bout the rolling stone piece were that the evangelicals mighta' been in denial regarding their racial biases, but they were quite vocal and forceful 'bout the affront they took at the rainbow flag and what it stood for. obama were acceptable until he started defending lgbt... well that and 'cause like minorities, working class americans were facing the pain o' protracted income disparity issues which had been growing unchecked through multiple Presidential administrations (republican and democrat) since the clinton years. is too ez to look at a group as monolithic. is a mistake. HA! Good Fun!

The Politics of Overturning Roe Are Bad for Republicans "On Tuesday, at a Republican press conference, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked three times about the big story of the week: A draft Supreme Court opinion, leaked to Politico, that exposed the Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. McConnell was furious about the leak. But each time reporters asked him to talk about abortion, he refused to engage. "Morally, this reticence seems bizarre. For half a century, Republicans have campaigned on promises to expunge Roe. They said millions of unborn lives were at stake. Now victory is at hand, but McConnell won’t talk about it. Why not? "The answer is simple: He knows this issue is bad for his party. Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority." HA! Good Fun!

if folks is seeing a new trend, they ain't been paying attention to our shadow docket posts. is also multiple affirmative action and admission policy cases related to public education which if you do searches you will realize has already been decided or is current up for review. bakke, gratz v. bollinger, and grutter v. bollinger would appear to be the next education precedents on this Courts' chopping bloc. keep in mind, bakke were a decision which rejected racial quotas specific, but it upheld affirmative action policies in general. were a plurality much like roe which makes it ripe for overturn. HA! Good Fun! ps is a short-term memory loss thing happening as well regarding The Court. please recall the two nightmares mentioned most frequent during the ACB hearings were the prospect o' roe being overturned but also (and more significant) the ACA being declared unconstitutional. is possible the ACA might be killed in the future, but the fear were an immediate disillusion ACA as the result o' a case which were projected to soon be before SCOTUS. and for those who so quick forgot... The Health 202: ACB helped save the ACA after all these issues is often not as portrayed. but regardless, is worth doing a search o' shadow docket shenanigans by this Court via your favorite search engine. the so-called conservatives has been kneecapping fundamental rights cases for a while now and such efforts has been garnering shocking little press 'cause few in the media understand the significance o' the shadow docket.

HA! Good Fun!

two quick points. first, our problem with the J. alito opinion is the history & tradition approach taken. a genuine textualist approach considers history but only in the context o' revealing the plain meaning o' the words o' legislation or laws as written at the time they were authored. a history and tradition analysis to legitimize conservative favoured substantive due process claims is therefore suspect from a textualist pov. which history means more anyways? previous to roe, there were indeed considerable history which would show a tendency to criminalize abortion. however, the s'posed justification for roe itself were the changing values o' american society as a whole which had shifted in favour o' a recognition o' a woman's right to self determination in matters o' medical treatments. since roe, the weight o' traditions has clear shifted even further such that today most polls show support o' some kinda abortion protection anywhere between seventy and eighty percent in favour o' maintaining roe. we now got fifty years o' tradition and history which appear to show a trend towards support o' a right to abortion. J. Gorsuch authored the recent obergefell v. hodges case... which we criticized. J. Gorsuch in obergefell observed the shift in societal values and opinions regarding same-sex marriage as validation for the granting o' a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. we observed how such an analysis were far too touchy-feely for The Court and that such an analysis were in fact the kinda policy choice Congress were meant to indulge. furthermore, support for same-sex marriage, even post obergefell, is 'ccording to most polls less pronounced than is the support for a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. regardless, the so-not-a-textualist-approach taken by J. Gorsuch in obergefell were criticized by J. alito as a violation o' textualist principles. says alito, “The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. it sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current value of society.” 'course the alito draft opinion similar undermines a textualist approach but instead replaces modern societal values with history and tradition as the guide. as such alito's criticism o' obergefell, while valid, is more than a little hypocritical. whatever. obergefell and the alito draft opinion, along with the first amendment cross case we mentioned earlier, reveal a new trend in the Court away from textualism as J. Scalia woulda' described in favour o' a highly subjective interpretations o' law. the so-called conservatives o' The Court has since the death o' J. Scalia become reactionary activists, a most disturbing trend as judicial restraint were previous considered the purview o' the conservatives. even if you didn't like conservative values, a so-called conservative Justice were less dangerous 'cause he/she would be less likely to make law as 'posed to limiting their efforts to interpretation o' law. unfortunate, if the alito draft opinion stands as has been leaked, then it might be time to give textualism a viking funeral. second, individuals receiving Presidential nomination to SCOTUS observing roe is settled law is meaningless. plessy v. ferguson were indeed settled law... up until brown v. board of education. is many examples o' The Court overturning precedent and in each case the Justices is rejecting established jurisprudence in favour o' a new rule o' law. am having no idea what were stated by SCOTUS nominees in private meetings with Congressmen, but am unable to recall any hearings in which Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or ACB stated unequivocal that they saw roe precedent as inviolable. and speaking o' precedent, am gonna observe how one year removed from the leak o' the alito draft, we observed how justice thomas were telegraphing his willingness to overturn roe, and alito had done similar laying o' groundwork if a bit less overt. ... well, not so quick points after all, but what were you expecting from a Gromnir response, eh? HA! Good Fun!

'course drug dealers are all metric as well. however, speaking o' obstinance, english drug dealers use the imperial system o' measurements. HA! Good Fun!

we were assigned near nightly homework for every class (save gym and the like) which were then graded. homework represented a not insignificant % o' our total grade for a course but considerable less than tests. however, keep in mind our high school years occurred in the 80s. @Hurlsnot would have a better idea o' how things work nowadays. HA! Good Fun!

is curious as the tweet appears designed to alienate a women voters, which don't sound like a particular effective approach for a politician, even in florida. if we had to guess at a strategy, we would assume this were part o' the curious new, own the libs bit which trump and his ilk popularized. no matter how stoopid a statement is, if the libs is "triggered" is somehow a win for the gop. ultimate payoff is managing an angry response from a "squad" member? am obvious not the target audience, so it makes it difficult to guess what is the payoff. HA! Good Fun!

dunno. am most assured not a supporter o' busywork; doesn't benefit student. however, in theory, a teacher who provides meaningful homework will receive useful feedback as they review homework, yes? an educator may look at homework as a way to gauge what lessons is successful and which is failing with a class before the students is compelled to take an exam and prove what they learned. also am suspecting the value o' homework as a basic survival skill might be misunderstood. unless things has changed much in the past few years, you don't get homework in university, grad school, med school, law school, etc. however, the study load at elite universities and post grad institutions o' learning increases substantial compared to even the most arduous high school homework regimen. am suspecting there is a shock to the system awaiting a student who had little homework in high school, and then sudden realize they need put in multiple hours o' work studying for every in-class hour if they wanna succeed at a decent university. am agreeing that almost none o' the homework we had to do in high school felt useful. even so, am not confident our feels represents what were useful 'bout homework. educators should be able to glean meaningful feedback from homework and homework is no doubt a basic life skill for anybody planning to go to a demanding school o' higher learning. am also guessing that if Gromnir anticipates less salient benefits o' homework, there is likely additional positives if is used appropriate as 'posed to mere busy work. HA! Good Fun!

we first saw this bit o' alt-right pith attributed to gaetz and considering his legal issues which allege the congressman's inappropriate involvement with millennial women, we thought the supposed tweet couldn't be legit, but we went to gaetz's twitter and sure enough it is bona-fide florida man. HA! Good Fun!

maybe belongs in the funny thread? moving on, susan collins is either the worst judge o' character evar, or she is a liar. is possible both is true, but am suspecting her success in politics ain't due to her being improbable gullible. and now HA! Good Fun!

if you believe republicans want a war against bodily autonomy, you ain't been paying attention to the past few years o' antivax nonsense coming from the right, and you are ignoring the not insignificant number o' republicans and independents who naïve embrace a view similar to @Guard Dog with their belief the government's role is to protect their property and their "rights," and nothing else; all that annoying democracy baggage is selective ignored. nationally, republicans have been avoiding just such a war for decades 'cause it were perceived as a political loser from the 70s onward. sure, in deep red states where evangelicals hold considerable clout, abortion (not bodily autonomy and privacy) is gonna be a hill worth dying 'pon, but the republican party as a whole has been dreading the overturn o' roe near as much as has democrats. is why on fox news the new alito opinion is hardly being discussed and instead they focus on the leak aspect. a legit complete apolitical Court woulda' killed roe decades past. again, roe were a shaky plurality opinion which satisfied nobody. as previous noted, rbg were the last Justice to sit on the Court who previous to appointment public criticized the legal basis o' roe. you kid yourself if you think none but rbg were equal critical o' roe until they became Justices, but precise 'cause criticism o' roe were deemed to be instant disqualifying a potential appointee, anybody with SCOTUS aspirations would suggest roe were established law but otherwise refuse to discuss their opinion o' the case. roe has always been political. btw, five o' the seven justices who voted with the majority in roe were old, white and male republican appointees. the problem for 2022 republicans is they most assured don't want a war on bodily autonomy and privacy which is gonna lose 'em numerous educated women voters, alienate libertarians/independents and galvanize democrats, but they can't have a roe "victory" without such a war. edit: CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it story is from january, 2022. a majority o' those ~30% who were invested in overturning roe is driven by sincere religious fervor. when national elections turn on less than 1% in battleground states, otherwise fringe constituencies become disproportionate meaningful. neither democrats or republicans want this. HA! Good Fun! ps is worth reflecting 'pon why obama and the democrats didn't hold out for real abortion protections when they pushed through the ACA. democrats didn't want this fight even when they could win it, and for good reason... good but highly political reason.

your proposed legislation is so opposite o' clean. if you cannot enumerate all the situations to which your new legislation would apply, then is gonna be deemed overbroad and unconstitutional. this never makes it outta committee... anywhere. gd no doubt also wants us to ignore how much unethical but not strict illegal dr. and patient interaction which would sudden be beyond the reach o' any governing body. keep in mind, there has been over one THOUSAND proposed bills to address abortion since 1973, ranging from limited to expansive. pretend as if nobody has ever suggested legislation is wrong. too "scared s-----ss to oppose it"? you funny. for a legislator is typical safer to do nothing than do the wrong thing. virtual every Congressional effort to deal with abortion has been a grandstanding effort. actual do something is hard, but historical it has been far safer to do not. again, the number o' legislative corpses where there were a majority o' members o' Congress finding a reason to be opposed to a solution is over a thousand. as a solution, a Constitutional amendment makes the most sense. if the Constitution is a bar to abortion as a right, then the obvious fix is to change the Constitution. number o' proposed amendments to date regarding abortion? not sure. is over 100. if gd 3/4 numbers were anything other than fantasy, this would be ez. no dice. am thinking many do not realize just how opposed is evangelicals and many other christians is to abortion. if you genuine believe abortion is murder, then is understandable impossible to support any legislation or Constitutional amendment which would legitimize mass murder, even if it means you got more privacy rights 'tween you and your doctor. as an aside, the southern gop and no compromise libertarians better hope we are genuine outta the pandemic stage for covid, 'cause The Court just knocked the stuffing outta the medical privacy argument for forgoing vaccines and other medical care. HA! Good Fun! ps am personal opposed to changing filibuster, particular given how recent changes has led to increased polarization o' american politics. HOWEVER, am also not ignorant o' the fact the filibuster has a tainted history. one reason we no longer have a talky filibuster is 'cause southern Congressmen used the procedural gambit to delay passage o' the Civil Rights Acts. in 1964, the senate were functional paralyzed for 60 working days while a group o' southerners plotted to kill the landmark legislation. the majority final managed to gather 70ish votes to invoke cloture, but that bit o' bigots bass agery is one o' the reasons why the talky filibuster were ended. yeah, looking at how harry reid and then mitch mcconnel used changes to the filibuster rules is the window through which Gromnir views the situation, but am also aware history goes back a bit further than most o' us easily recollect.

good luck with that. roe were decided 7:2, but there were three concurrences, which meant there were effective four different justifications for roe. ... some ineffable alchemy o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments, in addition to griswold v. connecticut privacy notions plus a possible nod to substantive due process results in abortions being granted the status o' a fundamental right, but a fundamental right which nevertheless must be considered in light o' a state's desire to protect the lives o' unborn children. at conception, 'ccording to roe, a mother's privacy rights 'tween her and her doctor as she seeks medical treatment is paramount, but with each passing day, the state's interest in protecting unborn children grows. is why otherwise arbitrary trimesters is so important when discussing abortion law in the US. if any o' that clarified the situation, then you are likely taking high grade drugs and we applaud you and your doctor... or whomever might be the recreational chemist responsible for your altered and enlightened state. roe is a mess. the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created. another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019), held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw. the original right to abortion came about 'cause The Court saw some kinda fundamental right as having evolved from the ether. sure, the founders wouldn't have recognized a mother's right to abortion during the first trimester, but at some unspecified point, american society changed such that abortion became as fundamental and integral as any enumerated right. maybe such ill defined rights bother you. maybe they don't. however, J. alito takes a position which makes conservative approved values which is failing to be enumerated in The Constitution more likely to gain recognition as a right, 'cause by definition those conservative values is gonna have the weight o' tradition and history, yes? could be a history o' corruption, bigotry and ignominy, but most history is, right? so where does the present case leave a right to privacy or the recent created right to same-sex marriage? am not shocked this Court killed roe, 'cause roe were always suspect law. the thing is, Congress has known there were a problem for many decades and they were too cowardly to do anything 'bout the problem. republicans wanted to keep the abortion talking point w/o needing to actual fight the battle. democrats didn't wanna lose catholics, who btw in spite o' abortion issue split almost 50/50 on biden/trump. brown v. board of education also had legal shortcomings, but Congress, in their torpid way, managed to address those problems after a decade of strife. near fifty years has elapsed since roe and most washington politicians has been aware the decision were a corroded landmine which were eventual gonna need to be disposed. unfortunately, The Court has always been the least adept branch for disposing o' such dangers. is no SCOTUS authority to explore public policy issues or implement street level changes. The Court is only capable o' making extreme broad pronouncements and they all too frequent ignore practicalities. individual state and local governments is gonna need figure out how to navigate the new post roe landscape. innocents will suffer. we likely won't see apocalyptic scenarios play out, but there will be an unnecessary figurative and literal body count from this decision. HA! Good Fun! ps the ray walston (boothby) addition is 'cause we wanted to work in a star trek angle. after all, is our position every obsidian post is trek related whether you realize it or not.

am gonna suggest J. Roberts were not wrong in the way you believe him to be... maybe. he were still wrong. many people, particular the lawyers, get overinvested in the value o' laws. china and russia both have Constitutions and their Constitutions provide more enumerated protections o' speech and assembly than does the Constitution of the United States of America. is a specific provision in the russian Constitution that gathering for peaceful protests is protected. am wondering if you has checked the news regarding protests in russia, eh? what do you think o' the protections o' peaceful assembly granted by the russian constitution? J. Roberts recognized there were a flaw in the VRA 'cause it provided inequitable treatment based on the past misdeeds o' people many o' whom were long dead. at the same time, he believed discrimination in 1965 were not the same as it were in 2013 and he also understood the positive changes were less 'bout the civil rights and voting laws and more 'bout american's evolving notions o' acceptable social norms. Congress passing the Civil Rights Acts and the VRA were more important than the laws themselves 'cause pass such laws in a democratic republic represents changing attitudes regarding how human beings should be treated. ... am not gonna suggest J. Roberts were in 2013 some kinda naïve utopian, but am thinking he saw societal changes post 1965 as making the specific provisions o' the VRA unnecessary, particular given the arguable flawed implementation aspect o' the law. horrible mistake. citizens united v. fec exacerbated a problem which already existed: self interested politicians had a pecuniary motive for staying in office. gerrymandering were an effective tool for politicians to solidify power, particular with access to 21st century tools unavailable to the founders. so, even if J. Roberts were correct and the US south and voting districts across the nation were less bigoted than in 1965, the practical interest o' politicians in exploiting racial divisions had actual increased during the same period o' time. also, as Gromnir has observed more than once, evolution o' societal views regarding race is not unidirectional. regression and degeneration o' nation and community norms regarding race and gender is possible and the past decade o' polarization on issues o' race should make axiomatic that is just as possible for society to rot as to grow. laws is not near as important as most o' us believe 'em to be, a point we keep trying to make. J. Roberts understands that truth. unfortunately, in 2013, J. Roberts saw the evolution o' US society as inarguable and so he ignored the possibility self-interested politicians in the south and elsewhere would magnify old hatreds and grudges once the protections o' the VRA were eliminated. Roberts and the other Conservative Justices saw the VRA as flawed 'cause o' how the provisions o' the law were applied inequitable. as important, J. Roberts saw the VRA as no longer necessary 'cause americans were better than they were in 1965, which were just a horribly myopic pov. HA! Good Fun!

eight killings from raylen in season one, covering multiple events. eight. the hand wave approach to some kinda review o' his actions is what you find noteworthy? okie dokie. and US cops, by and large, non-heroic prevent crime all the time. is mostly gonna be extreme mundane stuff. be visible in a neighborhood is an effective crime deterrent, but is hardly episodic tv material. real cop thursdays is gonna be other than dramatic, which we suspect most folks would not need explained 'cause is reality and not a tv show. duh. again, ain't seen the show you reference, but recall you focused on the shootings in your post. am gonna guess have a cop show where few people is shot is probable one o' the few things accurate 'bout the show, 'cause is freaking tv and we expect unrealistic drama. in a tv show 'bout cops there is gonna be police doing either heroic or villain if you want drama, but absence o' wild west shootings and frequent lethal encounters is not a reason to experience dissonance. confusing tv and reality. HA! Good Fun! ps again, you focused on shootings, which is why Gromnir did so. we has mentioned many times how we see as a flaw that cop training all too often involves casual violence which translates to many cop encounters turning unnecessarily adversarial and brutal. if you fail attitude test or engage in contempt of cop, is a good chance you suffer. shouldn't be that way. however, the shootings is actually exceptions as 'posed to a norm or commonplace. people is too focused on the shootings, so they ignore the bigger problems.

am not sure what is the point from lexx regarding raylen. marshal givens represents a cartoony old western notion o' US law enforcement and is nothing 'bout his portrayal which we would use as an example to explain dissonance with a show wherein people is not being killed frequent. tim gutterson, rachel brooks (multiple killings each) and at least a couple unnamed marshals shot and killed suspects in justified, but that is kinda a distraction as they ain't protagonists. speaking o' cartoony westerns, that subject has also been addressed previous on these boards. old western towns, with a small handful o' exceptions, enforced draconian gun control regulations which kept towns relative safe even by modern standards. however, there were a couple o' examples which lived up to the lawless western town mythology, but those were notable exceptions and their existence were fleeting, their names forgotten by all but the most serious history geek. regardless, the not so free and wild west is far removed from the reality in part 'cause o' folks not being able to separate reality from fiction. HA! Good Fun!

is not what you wanted, but is relevant even so. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-29/table-29.xls in excess o' 10 million reported police arrests made in the US in 2019. ~500k o' those were suspects of violent crimes. is not shown in the chart, but according to other sources such as wapo which attempts to track, the number of lethal police shootings o' unarmed suspects is a relative consistent ~300 per year over the past pre-covid decade. is not a statistic to be proud of, but considering the number o' armed cops making arrests every year, the number o' lethal shootings is in fact representing an extreme rarity. have also not watched the show in question, but whatever dissonance lexx and others suffer is in part 'cause o' largely misleading portrayals in other tv shows and 'cause o' media distortions. an inability o' many to separate fact from fiction is a problem. also, speaking more direct to your query: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/ "In fact, only about a quarter (27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job, according to a separate Pew Research Center survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform." am admitted surprised the urban v. rural aspect were less less dramatic skewed towards urban police weapon discharges. HA! Good Fun! ps please note the fbi stats need be taken with a potential heart stopping quantity of salt. state and local law enforcement report at their discretion and 'ccording to their own standards. the numbers the fbi releases regarding national crime stats and the like is valuable and is a decent starting point but it is always important to keep in mind the voluntary and inconsistent quality o' the reporting by state and local authorities. @Lexxthinking justified is more in line with his expectations is part o' the real disconnect. the entire marshal service averages 22 lethal shooting per year, which is actual quite high for law enforcement given marshal service numbers and as such has been the subject o' fed review on multiple occasions. raylen givens, in season one, killed eight people. am gonna guess givens averaged +4 lethal shootings per year, but is only a guess.

curious, mtg owes her seat in large part to eric holder and barack obama, though admitted, J. Roberts subsequent made mtgs possible everywhere in the US. shelby v. holder (2013) were a preclearance case decided by SCOTUS. the voting rights act o' 1965 (VRA) among other things observed how endemic systematic racism in the south had been responsible for overt prejudicial redistricting in multiple southern states and counties across the US, leading to minorities being deprived o' the one person, one vote principle which were fundamental to the furtherance o' an american democratic republic. as such, under the VRA, the feds (doj) were to review state redistricting efforts to ensure there were no funny business being attempted which would disenfranchise voters. the law problem with the statute were it applied selective to six states and a number o' additional counties as 'posed to the US entire. am suspecting you do not need a law degree to see why whenever a statute carves out exceptions, there is gonna be questions as to why such selective applicability would be equitable, yes? need a good reason to treat different. the fed review o' state redistricting is known as preclearance. in 2013, J. Roberts did a hand wave recognition o' the continued need for the VRA's preclearance provision: "Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation." SCOTUS scrapped preclearance and surprising to nobody save J. Roberts, southern states almost overnight redrew district voting maps to disenfranchise minority voters. ... the thing is, georgia republicans got the chance to redraw voting maps in 2010, and they submitted their plan under existing preclearance in 2011, two years previous to shelby. georgia's 14th district became noteworthy older and whiter. curious, eric holder and the obama administration approved georgia's redistricting plan w/o any request for adjustment, which were an unprecedented move at the time. 14th district o' georgia has been landslide red since the republican redistricting. is gonna be more mtgs in the coming years thanks to J. Roberts, but curious, mtg were made possible 'cause o' eric holder and obama. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

didn't use parentheticals, so am wondering if the person responsible for the fox news chyrons were aware o' repeating greene's spelling error. either way, is kinda amusing. Christians Aid Migrants Because Church Is Run By Satan, Marjorie Taylor Greene Says "In a clip from the interview released by the group Right Wing Watch, Voris asked Greene about Catholic organizations in the U.S. that use federal funding to help resettle undocumented immigrants and refugees. "“I thought we had a separation of church and state,” Greene said in response. "“What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church,” she continued. “The church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live.” "She added that Christian groups that say you should take care of migrants are “destroying our laws” and taking advantage of Americans." ... the sad part is am betting a few boardies agree with greene. so it goes. HA! Good Fun!