Donald Trump

briantrumpet

If you've been following the debates on this leaked ruling, then you might be aware that this is the thin end of the wedge. The Evangelical Right is on the march.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

rick_chasey

Reps like forcing women to have kids so they can use them as target practice.



(Not my joke, alas)

First.Aspect

It's the Handsmaids Tale, but without a continental fertility problem.

imposter2.0

Hunger Games, but stopping at the Handmaid's Tale first....

TheBigBean

A lot of criticism of judges going on today.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

A lot of criticism of judges going on today.

The perfect split in the decision does cast at least some doubt about adherence to the "without fear or favor" bit in their oath.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

Reps like forcing women to have kids so they can use them as target practice.



(Not my joke, alas)

Children being shot is not really a joke though is it Richard.

If you think it is then fuckmesomething has gone badly wrong......

pblakeney

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Reps like forcing women to have kids so they can use them as target practice.



(Not my joke, alas)

Children being shot is not really a joke though is it Richard.

If you think it is then fuckmesomething has gone badly wrong......

I'll take a guess at it being from Jimmy Carr.

kingstongraham

JimD666 said:

kingstongraham said:

JimD666 said:

kingstongraham said:

JimD666 said:

imposter2.0 said:

And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..

Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shafted

There's nothing that says the court has to be this size. It hasn't always been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 would disagree that there nothing that sets the size.

I mean not in the constitution.

Laws can be made, but they have probably already waited too long to do it before the midterms. Only one side is willing to do everything that can be vaguely justified.

Fair point.

Even if they did try (and had the votes) to change the law, guess what happens when it ends up challenged in the courts?

It's settled law that Congress sets the number of justices (see 1869), and it would not be unconstitutional. Nothing for the Supreme Court to rule against.

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Reps like forcing women to have kids so they can use them as target practice.



(Not my joke, alas)

Children being shot is not really a joke though is it Richard.

If you think it is then fuckmesomething has gone badly wrong......

Whoosh

rjsterry

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Reps like forcing women to have kids so they can use them as target practice.



(Not my joke, alas)

Children being shot is not really a joke though is it Richard.

If you think it is then fuckmesomething has gone badly wrong......

I'd have thought you would appreciate a black sense of humour.

Please tell me we are not at the point of having to explain jokes.

rick_chasey

A Tory peer…

https://twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1540361915590918145?s=21&t=_6ZrggMJheRBVCOIwKwOpA

First.Aspect

Democracy - going against 80% of the population. Hard to argue against that these days.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

Democracy - going against 80% of the population. Hard to argue against that these days.

Is the 20% a majority in some states or do the elected representatives not represent the population?

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Democracy - going against 80% of the population. Hard to argue against that these days.

Is the 20% a majority in some states or do the elected representatives not represent the population?

It depends on what granular level you take democracy. I suspect that there are some states where there would be a majority for racial discrimination, but at a national level the US decided that that must not be decided state by state.

MattFalle

Just been out for a ride with two mates.

One is Thatcherite right wing

One centrist left

Me left.

We had a bit of a heated discussion about the rail strikes and unions and de pffeffel which as you can guess, went along party lines.

One thing we all 100% agreed on was how mad bizarre this decison by the SC is - throws the US back to 1959.

Utterly bewildering decison but will it unify certain parts of society to fight against it?

MattFalle

The other good point made was lets see the crime rate in 18 - 21 years when all the children born that would not have been born where it not for this decison end up on the streets.

ddraver

MattFalle said:

Utterly bewildering decison but will it unify certain parts of society to fight against it?

Very aware that this is dripping in all sorts of Male Privilege but one tiny silver lining I can see is that the Tory nonsense about human rights and the ECHR has now been made a lot harder to pull off as it's demonstrated exactly how much we can lose our rights if we're not careful about it

surrey_commuter

JimD666 said:

imposter2.0 said:

And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..

Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shafted

The ailing Dem judges could have resigned when Obama was President and avoided this situation. It is hardly like they were struck by lightning and robbed of decades of life.

JimD666

surrey_commuter said:

JimD666 said:

imposter2.0 said:

And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..

Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shafted

The ailing Dem judges could have resigned when Obama was President and avoided this situation. It is hardly like they were struck by lightning and robbed of decades of life.

Assuming any Obama nominee would of received Senate confirmation. Not saying you're wrong but Obama didn't have 60 votes in the senate for the vast majority of his term, only for a couple of months (I think).

EDIT: I'm wrong only a simple majority is required for confirmation.

sungod

surrey_commuter said:

JimD666 said:

imposter2.0 said:

And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..

Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shafted

The ailing Dem judges could have resigned when Obama was President and avoided this situation. It is hardly like they were struck by lightning and robbed of decades of life.

the republicans in the senate would still have blocked his nominees, as they did with garland, mcconnell and the republicans on the judiciary committee made it clear that they would never allow obama to fill a vacancy

for years the republicans have used measures that in earlier times they would have seen as unacceptable, from reagan, then the 'tea party' movement, it surged massively under trump

for years, the democrats have made the mistake of being 'reasonable', end result is where things are today

there's concerted action by extremists to gain control at all levels, especially where they might be able to interfere in the electoral process, driven by trump's lies about the election he lost, they want to make sure the next vote goes their way

biden has wasted two years playing by the old rules, it was obvious that was never going to work

either the democrats fight fire with fire while they still can, or the extremists operating under the republican banner will erode democracy even further

tailwindhome

MattFalle said:

imposter2.0 said:

MattFalle said:

imposter2.0 said:

Term limits are the way forward. Either that or expand the court.

Wouldn't have worked as both new Rep appointees and said tbey weren't interested in overturning during pre-appt discussions but here we are.

Clarence Thomas has been on the court for 31 years. A 20/25/30 year term limit (delete as appropriate) would have seen him replaced by now - potentially by someone who isn't a rabid fcking lunatic.

Yes. He was sppointed under Bush. Both new Rep appts are as per MFs post above.

And yes, both him and his wife arebatshit crazy.

It has been pointed out elsewhere, that the basis on which the RoevWade ruling was made, and the knock-on effect on Same Sex Marriage and contraception, also would apply to interracial marraige.

Which Justice Thomas leaves outs

tailwindhome

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.

Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.

Is there anywhere that doesn't allow abortion if the mother's life is at risk?

Seemingly several states in the US when their 'trigger' laws are triggered

Dorset_Boy

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

skyblueamateur

Dorset_Boy said:

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

Was legalised a while back.

Dorset_Boy

skyblueamateur said:

Dorset_Boy said:

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

Was legalised a while back.

Thanks.
Have the Blairs passed comment as good catholics?

I personally think it's an appalling decision, and the possible next steps are very worrying .
Interesting how the religous far right meets the Catholic left on this.

tailwindhome

Dorset_Boy said:

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

Legalised in Jan 2019, following a referendum to amend the constitution.

tailwindhome

Dorset_Boy said:

skyblueamateur said:

Dorset_Boy said:

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

Was legalised a while back.

Thanks.
Have the Blairs passed comment as good catholics?

I personally think it's an appalling decision, and the possible next steps are very worrying .
Interesting how the religous far right meets the Catholic left on this.

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

skyblueamateur said:

Dorset_Boy said:

tailwindhome said:

You all do know that while abortion has technically been decriminalised in NI the Unionist Health Minister has still not commissioned any abortion services.

Woman in NI still must travel to England for an abortion in the year 2022.

Is abortion forbidden in the Republic? I have no idea and just curious. I suspect it's probably banned.

Was legalised a while back.

Thanks.
Have the Blairs passed comment as good catholics?

I personally think it's an appalling decision, and the possible next steps are very worrying .
Interesting how the religous far right meets the Catholic left on this.

I'm probably reading you and the Catholic Church wrong but I thought the Catholic Church has always been against abortion. The decision probably suits them just nicely.

Another probable misconception of mine is that the U.S. far right are WASPs.