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

[Hurlshort]

Kids aren't even cold in the ground from Uvalde. 

[Gromnir]

"ken klukowski"

is the s'posed author o' the infamous jeffery clark memo.

...

kinda major info just sortaa slipped into the hearing is klukowski, who weren't appointed to doj until dec. 15, 2020 (?), were working with eastman both previous to doj appointment and subsequent. representative perry and mark meadows both refer to kluwkowski as being involved in the overall january 6 effort.

add another name to list o' those who should take 5th.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[BruceVC]

@Pidesco

I just watched another discussion on CNN about " is Trump going to be prosecuted " and one of the commentators is Daniel Goldman who is a lawyer and has been council for the WH. He is now saying based on the various testimonies at the impeachment hearings that their is enough evidence to prosecute Trump and it sounds like it will be for the crime of willful ignorance. I get bored in most  legal discussions and dont really follow them but Goldman is very articulate, intelligent and convincing. Now you need to find a prosecutor who will want to charge Trump?

So you may be right and Trump will face criminal charges. If thats true and Trump is found guilty that really works for me because that will remove him from 2024 and we can get behind another GOP presidential candidate for those who support the GOP

So if he is found guilty its good news for both the left and right but not necessarily the far right or radical left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_S._Goldman

 

[Malcador]

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0

Going to be another fun weekend, I guess.

[Gorgon]

So, Roe vs Wade overturned. 

My immediate thought, this is going to be bad for republicans. States that might conceivably institute a ban are going to get a lot of new democratic voters. And there is going to be internal pressure to ban, the abortion issue is a hallmark of the Christian right. 

[alanschu]

35 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

My immediate thought, this is going to be bad for republicans.

I've definitely been hit with a degree of nihilism that I'm not sure this will actually be the case.

That said, my in-law that works for a small town (centrist Republican) judge in Texas says they have heard people around the courthouse worry that this will be the thing that gets Beto elected.

[Malcador]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-claims-al-jazeera-journalist-killed-by-israeli-fire-calls-for-criminal-inquiry/

The findings showed that seven journalists arrived at the western entrance of the Jenin refugee camp soon after 6 a.m. At around 6:30 a.m., as four of the journalists turned into a particular street, “several single, seemingly well-aimed bullets were fired towards them from the direction of the Israeli security forces,” the UN stated on Friday.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Frankly I see it as a toss up. Sure there are(were?) a whole lot of folks who voted for Republicans in spite of a reactionary social agenda because of low taxes that this might offend, but if they've stuck it out over the last decade it seems like this is a strange straw to break the camel's back. I mean it's hard to believe that someone could be stupid enough to think that Republicans really didn't want to ban abortion.

[alanschu]

If I understand this correctly, Thomas is suggesting the Court should reconsider some other cases as well. Griswold was about contraception, Lawrence about overturning anti-sodomy laws, and Obergefell about same sex marriage.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Just now, alanschu said:

If I understand this correctly, Thomas is suggesting the Court should reconsider some other cases as well. Griswold was about contraception, Lawrence about overturning anti-sodomy laws, and Obergefell about same sex marriage.

You understand it correctly.

[alanschu]

 

17 minutes ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

Frankly I see it as a toss up. Sure there are(were?) a whole lot of folks who voted for Republicans in spite of a reactionary social agenda because of low taxes that this might offend, but if they've stuck it out over the last decade it seems like this is a strange straw to break the camel's back. I mean it's hard to believe that someone could be stupid enough to think that Republicans really didn't want to ban abortion.

I think one thing that gets a bit overlooked is voter apathy, and how Republicans delivering wins to some part of their electorate helps combat that.  Even in the case of Republican supporters that ostensibly are against the reactionary social agenda, if they are in some way still getting their wins with whatever fiscal policies or whatever else and are unaffected by the social agenda then they'll continue voting.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

17 minutes ago, alanschu said:

 

I think one thing that gets a bit overlooked is voter apathy, and how Republicans delivering wins to some part of their electorate helps combat that.  Even in the case of Republican supporters that ostensibly are against the reactionary social agenda, if they are in some way still getting their wins with whatever fiscal policies or whatever else and are unaffected by the social agenda then they'll continue voting.

That was my point lmao. I'm very angry about this and trying not to post anything too bad. That they're also going to come out against marriage equality, contraception, and anti-sodomy laws is terrifying.

[alanschu]

2 minutes ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

That was my point lmao. I'm very angry about this and trying not to post anything too bad. That they're also going to come out against marriage equality, contraception, and anti-sodomy laws is terrifying.

Oh yes I quoted but it was definitely more in agreement rather than pushing back or anything. I think I'm in a "typing out my thoughts" frame of mind with the news.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

49 minutes ago, alanschu said:

Oh yes I quoted but it was definitely more in agreement rather than pushing back or anything. I think I'm in a "typing out my thoughts" frame of mind with the news.

I got you.

As much as I'd like to see a groundswell of opposition that stops the Christian fascist march we've been seeing, I'm pessimistic at the prospects. Though I was surprised at the summer of rebellion in 2020 as a result of George Floyd's murder, so maybe that will repeat itself.

[Chilloutman]

Are you guys nuts in US? I just discovered that you allow interruptions till 6th month and some wants it even till 9!??? Look I am not christian fascist but cmon people. 3 moths is plenty of time....

[Gorgon]

Not every tadpole is supposed to make it. 

[Gorgon]

Part of the reason we aren't heading for an extreme overpopulation problem is that as living standards go up, birth rates go down - as people have the number of children they want and can support, rather than be a victim of circumstance. 

[HoonDing]

 

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

Part of the reason we aren't heading for an extreme overpopulation problem is that as living standards go up, birth rates go down - as people have the number of children they want and can support, rather than be a victim of circumstance. 

And games making people undesirable to mate with.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Malcador

[alanschu]

43 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

Are you guys nuts in US? I just discovered that you allow interruptions till 6th month and some wants it even till 9!??? Look I am not christian fascist but cmon people. 3 moths is plenty of time....

I used to be fine with some level of restriction but shifted to unrestricted largely based on understanding that as it stands in the US 93% of abortions are done in the first trimester and that given the relative rarity of later term abortions, defer to trusting the mother making the decision whether it be health related to even the unfortunate reality that for some obtaining access to an abortion provider was difficult and/or life circumstances have changed (unemployment, lack of supports, etc).

The death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland was a tipping point for me, where I realized that if you are trying to have any moral restrictions on abortion, it will inevitably result in people having "more morally valid" justifications also suffering the consequences of those restrictions and IMO that isn't worth occasionally criminalizing someone for it. Inevitably trying to codify the exceptions will almost indelibly impact more people than it would intend.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

If I understand this correctly, Thomas is suggesting the Court should reconsider some other cases as well. Griswold was about contraception, Lawrence about overturning anti-sodomy laws, and Obergefell about same sex marriage.

"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."

and

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?

also

...

highlight the following:

is no reason for most obsidian posters to recognize, but the real danger o' the recent 2nd amendment case, while unrelated to substantive due process, is that thomas relied on the same so not textualist busted arse "history" approach used by alito to overturn roe. women and minorities (religious, racial, etc.) were marginalized during much o' the history o' this nation and the substantive due process analysis applied by alito and thomas considers history contemporaneous and previous to 1789 (original constitution and bill o' rights) and 1868 (fourteenth amendment.) how many women want to turn back the legal clock to 1868 or 1789?  those were the salad days for asian and/or jewish americans? the new conservative majority has abandoned textualism and instead embraced a skewed and self-serving history approach. the Justices has shown time and again their historical scholarship is selective and suspect but even when the do get it right, the history and traditions contemporaneous and previous to relevant Constitutional sections and clauses is gonna almost always burden women and minorities to a unconscionable degree.

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. will such fears be enough to get democrats to vote? history says no, but recent elections is changing the history a bit. there were record turnouts for primaries in places such as georgia even after the recent passage o' the state's new jim crow voting law. how long will democrats remain invested in outcomes? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Chilloutman said:

Are you guys nuts in US? I just discovered that you allow interruptions till 6th month and some wants it even till 9!??? Look I am not christian fascist but cmon people. 3 moths is plenty of time....

As GD said, less than 1% of abortions are done in the 3rd trimester, and there are usually extenuating circumstances in those cases. These are women that have probably picked out a name, had a baby shower, maybe even setup a nursery. They have to make a tremendously difficult decision and it should only be between them and their medical professional. No politician or pastor should have say in it.

[alanschu]

35 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

is no reason for most obsidian posters to recognize

I definitely couched my words with this in mind ("If I read this correctly") and was hoping you'd chime in.

Thanks for the detailed post.

[Raithe]

Well for the cheap snark from the sidelines:

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, alanschu said:

I definitely couched my words with this in mind ("If I read this correctly") and was hoping you'd chime in.

Thanks for the detailed post.

is not your fault. SCOTUS opinions is poor understood by the public and the US media does a questionable job o' clarifying.

the original roe v. wade were not a decision which balanced a woman's right to choose against the state's interests in the rights of unborn children, or not for the most part.

"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."

medical privacy were the linchpin for creating a right to abortion, and Alito and thomas just delivered a one finger salute to any/all fuzzy and non enumerated privacy rights. in the portion you linked, thomas specific calls out griswold as a potential future target for correction, yes?  

keep in mind, when tucker carlson and the maga nation raged about vaccine mandates, the basis for their anger were medical privacy and Alito and thomas just b!tch slapped the snot outta medical privacy. the maga crowd which is cheering today's decision have no idea what is the actual implications o' the change in substantive due process jurisprudence. 

can't have democracy work as envisioned by the founders w/o an educated populace but the law is intentional arcane. if the law were ez to understand and clear w/o reliance on counter-intuitive and issue specific jargon which further limits comprehension, you wouldn't need pay somebody many hundreds o' dollars an hour to handle your legal problems. lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the law complicated and confounding. nevertheless, when voters go to polls, all too often the issues o' the day has a significant legal component. is a fundamental problem but one poor recognized. 

HA! Good Fun!

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.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Gromnir