The All Things Political Topic - A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

the new conservative Court is not only reactionary but it has become unabashed activist. is a whole lotta rights americans believe to be sacrosanct, rights which Alito and thomas has now made abundant clear they is seeing as unconstitutional, and they has managed to convince at least three other Justices to go along with their slash and burn approach to substantive rights on multiple occasions. is good reason to be concerned 'bout the future o' many US liberties and freedoms. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Completely agree with this take. It's definitely causing me to re-think some of my past admiration for Thomas. 

[Gromnir]

have mentioned previous how we respected thomas as a judge if not as a Justice. fair. consistent. past couple years has forced us to reevaluate.

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

ps one additional point to observe is how most western democracies with some kinda abortion right is enjoying their right 'cause o' their national legislative body. it were monumental stoopid for the US to rely on roe v. wade for decades w/o Congress addressing and cementing a right. am not saying am ok with how Alito arrived with his decision, but this were a fixable problem and were more than enough time to address previous to 2022.

I've heard that as a (fair, IMO) critique towards Democrats whom, IIRC, with Obama's campaign promised "Day One" to do so and even with a small slice of a filibuster proof Senate still opted not to.

While I agree that a lot of Republicans enjoyed Roe v Wade not being overturned as a way to galvanize votes, I suspect there was also non-zero amount of Democratic Party that preferred the status quo as a way to fundraise and campaign with votes as well.

It's interesting seeing the reaction to some of the fundraising emails that immediately went out shortly after the news which has left some of my (definitely Dem Critical) social circles feeling it comes across as tone deaf.

[Raithe]

 

[Gromnir]

35 minutes ago, Raithe said:

 

am never taking the twitter length stuff 100% serious, but to be fair, guns didn't have a right to an abortion previous to today. women losing a right don't necessarily mean they got less rights than guns... particular as firearms literal have no rights whatsoever. 

that said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specific enumerated in the Constitution. you are gonna have difficulty finding abortion or privacy anywhere in the Constitution. Alito, thomas, Gorsuch ACB and Kavanaugh says non-enumerated rights may exist, but only if history and tradition circa 1789 and 1868 supports such a finding. republicans should be no less incensed as democrats by the manner in which roe were overturned 'cause is now a whole bunch o' rights important to conservatives on the proverbial chopping block, though as previous stated, women and minorities is the most obvious losers from the move away from Scalia's brand o' textualism to the history and tradition focused originalism o' the current conservative (but curious activist) Justices.

regardless, and like it or not, the authors o' the Constitution specific identified firearms and a very small number o' other freedoms and liberties. one reason so few freedoms is enumerated is 'cause the founders as a whole trusted democracy, particular state and local democracy, to protect rights. even so, american democracy had five decades to fix the roe problem and every Congress since 1973 chose to instead ignore. 

HA! Good Fun!

[InsaneCommander]

6 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

3 moths is plenty of time....

Not in every case. There is an example of this right now in Brazil, with an eleven year old that was raped and nobody knew until after 3 months. And a judge tried to prevent her from aborting, despite it being allowed by law. Quite the scandal in the media.

[BruceVC]

The overturning of Roe vs Wade may not cost the Republicans anything, we will see in the midterms 

We mustnt assume that every women supports abortion, millions dont. 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Raithe said:

 

This has been going around for a while now, its such a ridiculous statement " guns have more rights than women" 

Its just  culture wars rhetoric and conflating gun control with abortion is unhelpful 

[HoonDing]

Women in Russia and China have more rights than in Amerika.

Edited June 25, 2022 by HoonDing

[BruceVC]

16 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Women in Russia and China have more rights than in Amerika.

Oh definitely, its the same as their is no racism in Russia and China  

We should all immigrate to these countries 

[alanschu]

Looking forward to seeing what SCOTUS does with West Virginia v EPA soon. I think that's tomorrow even.

[Guard Dog]

Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on football field raised questions about church-state separation

SCOTUS got this one right. I really thought they would get Kagan to swing to the majority on this one. It went 6-3. I was expecting 7-2. Oh well. Didn't read any of the reasoning yet but seems like the right outcome. The separation of Church and State should not empower the extermination of voluntary public religious expression on personal time just because the individual involved happens to be a state employee. 

[alanschu]

I thought the issue was that he was pulling the rest of the kids in to take part of that which is something that would have definitely annoyed Militant Atheist Allan from my late teens.

[Hurlshort]

30 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on football field raised questions about church-state separation

SCOTUS got this one right. I really thought they would get Kagan to swing to the majority on this one. It went 6-3. I was expecting 7-2. Oh well. Didn't read any of the reasoning yet but seems like the right outcome. The separation of Church and State should not empower the extermination of voluntary public religious expression on personal time just because the individual involved happens to be a state employee. 

As long as they are facing Mecca, it seems reasonable to me.

[alanschu]

15 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

As long as they are facing Mecca, it seems reasonable to me.

I mean I 100% am skeptical that the ruling (and all the events leading up to it) would have been the same if he was doing anything religious but not Christian!

[Amentep]

28 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on football field raised questions about church-state separation

SCOTUS got this one right. I really thought they would get Kagan to swing to the majority on this one. It went 6-3. I was expecting 7-2. Oh well. Didn't read any of the reasoning yet but seems like the right outcome. The separation of Church and State should not empower the extermination of voluntary public religious expression on personal time just because the individual involved happens to be a state employee. 

Disagree.  It wasn't personal time.  Just because a game is ended doesn't mean the employee's obligation to their employer, in this case, the state has ended.  Nor does it mean that the state owned facility is suddenly not state owned. Further as an authority figure, there are probably many who feel unable to refuse to participate when it became a public gathering since he chose to offer his prayer not in private, but in public in the state owned facility.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The separation of Church and State should not empower the extermination of voluntary public religious expression on personal time just because the individual involved happens to be a state employee. 

one o' the more misunderstood phrases related to First Amendment is separation of church and state, 'cause thomas jefferson, the guy who came up with the wall o' separation bit, clear would disagree with gd. if jefferson had input, a school coach, acting as a school coach on school property most certain coulda and shoulda' been barred from any overt religious displays.

HOWEVER, the Court has never actual recognized a genuine separation o' church and state approaching anywhere close to what jefferson described. also, the Court does not reexamine the facts as determined by the lower Court, so what we were talking 'bout were three instances o' voluntary prayer in which players were invited but not coerced to join. am thus not particular surprised by the decision and if one takes facts given as true, and that is what we is supposed to do, then voluntary and non coercive prayer after a game were unlikely to be prohibited.

now admitted there is a bit o' the willful obtuse required to ignore coach behaviours as described by parents and others which suggests the prayer groups following games were less voluntary than they has been described. simple say is voluntary don't make true especial in a team situation and with a coach asking for participation. nevertheless, such questions is for the finder o' fact and the Court only reviews the law. 

50 minutes ago, alanschu said:

I mean I 100% am skeptical that the ruling (and all the events leading up to it) would have been the same if he was doing anything religious but not Christian!

disagree. the Court has upheld islamic, jewish and even santerian practices which offended christians. have referenced the la county court house nativity scene display case. practical result o' allowing the crèche on public property is that every denomination and religion may also have space for their display; can't have the government endorse one faith over another, so if one receives a benefit so do all the rest.  Gorsuch, in particular, is gonna presumptive find in favour o' religion, regardless o' the practice... even to logic stretching extremes.

that said, with the busted arse history and traditions approach to textualism Alito and thomas now use, does result in christians getting more leeway than other denominations 'cause there is necessarily gonna be more tradition and history supporting christian causes. need be aware o' thomas and Alito as they is going a dangerous route with their selective history approach which necessarily favours bigoted outcomes.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 27, 2022 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

49 minutes ago, alanschu said:

I mean I 100% am skeptical that the ruling (and all the events leading up to it) would have been the same if he was doing anything religious but not Christian!

Too obvious a trap for them to fall into, even if the justices aren't as principled as they make out.

[alanschu]

19 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

disagree. the Court has upheld islamic, jewish and even santerian practices which offended christians. have referenced the la county court house nativity scene display case. practical result o' allowing the crèche on public property is that every denomination and religion may also have space for their display; can't have the government endorse one faith over another, so if one receives a benefit so do all the rest.  Gorsuch, in particular, is gonna presumptive find in favour o' religion, regardless o' the practice... even to logic stretching extremes.

that said, Alito, with the busted arse history and traditions approach to textualism does result in christians getting more leeway than other denominations 'cause there is necessarily gonna be more tradition and history supporting christian causes. need be aware o' thomas and Alito as they is going a dangerous route with their selective history approach which necessarily favours bigoted outcomes.

I do understand that the Court has in the past has been very open and supportive towards any religion receiving protections, but my general feeling is definitely a "with the recent court" and I lean more towards the "that said" component with your second point.

A big part of my skepticism is a curiousness as to what the SCOTUS will do in response to some Jewish groups preparing to go after assorted anti-abortion bills, as I feel that the court would likely end up voting in support of upholding any laws against abortion. I suppose we shall see... just not confident about it.

 

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Too obvious a trap for them to fall into, even if the justices aren't as principled as they make out.

TBH I doubt it'd actually get to the supreme court, and would start to fall apart at "coach invites members of the press to come and witness the event" kind of stage.

Edited June 27, 2022 by alanschu

[Raithe]

On 6/25/2022 at 5:34 AM, BruceVC said:

This has been going around for a while now, its such a ridiculous statement " guns have more rights than women" 

Its just  culture wars rhetoric and conflating gun control with abortion is unhelpful 

Indeed. But it's still kind of amusing. And sometimes in the middle of a very emotionally charged debate, you need something slightly silly.

For the non-silly stuff,

had anyone been paying attention to this thing?

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights?

Today, in Vega v. Tekoh, the court backtracked substantially on its Miranda promise. In Vega, the court held 6-3 (over an excellent dissent by Justice Elena Kagan) that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. By denying people whose rights are violated the ability to seek redress under our country’s most important civil rights statute, the court has further widened the gap between the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and the people’s ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.

[alanschu]

This was from The Times in the UK lol. Some interesting bar chart usage here.
 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

18 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Indeed. But it's still kind of amusing. And sometimes in the middle of a very emotionally charged debate, you need something slightly silly.

For the non-silly stuff,

had anyone been paying attention to this thing?

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights?

 

 

Yes. In my understanding you can still have something thrown out if your Miranda warnings weren't given, you just can't sue for damages after the fact. Which is incredibly awful, but not as bad as the removal of Miranda rights.

As always, I recommend to anyone that you do not talk to cops (and other law enforcement officers) aside from asking if you're being detained/are free to go and saying you want a lawyer.

[Gromnir]

48 minutes ago, Raithe said:

 

had anyone been paying attention to this thing?

 

 

 

keep in mind miranda is alive and well; evidence illegal obtained in violation o' miranda will continue to be excluded. however, miranda is a due process implied right, so if justice thomas gets his way, it will be reexamined and obliterated.

even so, this is yet another example o' Congress failing to address an obvious problem, 'cause while there is indeed a statute which identifies fed agents violating fed rules and laws exposes the agent to civil liability, the current Court is making clear that judicial decisions don't count as fed rules and laws... unless the Court specific carves out an exception. sovereign immunity is the Rule, and unless Congress (or in rare cases, the Court) creates an exception, the crown/government cannot be sued.

perhaps you recall a similar issue came up with the recent warrantless search of a property on the border 'tween the US and kanada? weren't 'bout exclusion o' evidence but rather 'bout capacity to sue the bad agent... an agent who were fired btw. 

Congress could quite easily amend §1983 to fix this issue, but at the moment, with stoopid levels o' polarization, ez is much more difficult than it should be. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Gromnir

[alanschu]

Seems like The Times bar chart shenanigans is because the data on the iPad app showed a different question for the same chart the print version had which looks a bit more normal. I guess the 25% is for ALL voters, not just for Tory voters. Not sure how this happens, but figure that the process of putting numbers/charts is probably more manual (and prone to a mistake happening) than I originally thought haha.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

Seems like The Times bar chart shenanigans is because the data on the iPad app showed a different question for the same chart the print version had which looks a bit more normal. I guess the 25% is for ALL voters, not just for Tory voters. Not sure how this happens, but figure that the process of putting numbers/charts is probably more manual (and prone to a mistake happening) than I originally thought haha.

Yes this is more accurate, Johnson is good PM and he is not going to step down just because of the media feeding frenzy over Partygate or because people keep saying he lied when he didnt. Sorry Alan, I can only imagine how disappointed you must be