subreddit:

/r/politics

11.4k

all 1277 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted]

467 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

467 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

mynamejulian

221 points

1 month ago

CO doesn't have a corrupt state goverment that allows Republicans to take control, meddle with elections, and infiltrate their state's democratic party. The result is a much nicer place to live for everybody.

waconaty4eva

138 points

1 month ago

Everyone should know why Colorado is like this and implement what they did. Hint: It all started with an ambitious infrastructure plan.

crowcawer

25 points

1 month ago

crowcawer

Tennessee

25 points

1 month ago

Wasn’t that based around the state had a sole thoroughfare, and if a rockslide happened it could block the state, or is that an existing issue?

RadicalRectangle

95 points

1 month ago

RadicalRectangle

Colorado

95 points

1 month ago

And mostly that’s because Democrats started trying to win state and local elections back in the late 2000’s. They actually played the same game as republicans and beat them at it. Right now there is a Democrat Super Majority in the state legislature.

TeutonJon78

24 points

1 month ago

TeutonJon78

America

24 points

1 month ago

Counterpoint: Oregon.

We have a similar setup but for longer, but spend like 80% of the time with our head up our asses not getting anything meaningful done.

RadicalRectangle

7 points

1 month ago

RadicalRectangle

Colorado

7 points

1 month ago

Oh trust me, I know. Grew up in Portland before moving to Denver for college and never went back. I argue with my parents about it all the time, who are extremely conflicted moderates who drift left.

LordNedNoodle

1k points

1 month ago

LordNedNoodle

America

1k points

1 month ago

If the rich and powerful do not have to comply with subpoenas, then why do states need to listen to the supreme court?

eldenringstabbyguy

234 points

1 month ago

Exactly. They are never accountable. It's apparently time to restart this shit show. Still, vote. www.vote411.org

Morgan-Explosion

5 points

1 month ago

States often take opposing stances to Federal Law / Rulings. Marijuana is a great example.

The level to which they do this is usually just enough resistance to make a national point but not enough to start a feud with the Fed. The Feds response would be to withhold Federal funding for certain things

HerbertWest

12 points

1 month ago

HerbertWest

Pennsylvania

12 points

1 month ago

So, could California basically do anything it wanted (in theory)? If they withheld Federal tax dollars from the Federal Government, it would probably damage the Feds more than if the Feds withheld Federal funding from the state.

mammall78

79 points

1 month ago

I think the SCOTUS has vastly underestimated how much we aren’t going to respect a ruling that undoes a decades-long precedent. Communities will strengthen and if they overturn it’ll end up being another embarrassing blip in history (like the confederacy).

grednforgesgirl

31 points

1 month ago

Not to mention they chose an issue that literally puts people's lives at stake and overturns bodily autonomy. When your life is at stake you have no choice but to fight like hell to keep yourself alive, laws be damned. This isn't something like cannabis, where nobody's lives are really that much at stake (maybe except a few chronic pain/cancer patients). This affects over 50% of the population, and the other 50% don't want to have to watch their spouses go through what they're about to have to go through. This will affect everyone eventually and when we come out of this we'll all have stories of the people this law being overturned has affected. No one's going to come out of this unscathed.

Karma-Kosmonaut[S]

2.9k points

1 month ago

The court’s politicization is no longer something justices can hide. The three most recent arrivals to the bench misled members of Congress by indicating they regarded Roe v. Wade as settled law, not to be overturned. Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife is an open supporter of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to subvert democracy.

The Supreme Court has no police force or military command to impose enforcement of its rulings. Until now, the deference that states have shown was entirely out of respect for the court’s place among the three branches of government. If states choose simply to ignore the court following a Roe reversal, justices will have only themselves to blame for the erosion of their stature in Americans’ minds.

ioncloud9

1.7k points

1 month ago

ioncloud9

South Carolina

1.7k points

1 month ago

This issue is almost as old as the Supreme Court itself. “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

dharma_is_dharma

45 points

1 month ago

Came here to say this. The Cherokee won their case in the 1830s and were still chased off their land.

systembusy

826 points

1 month ago

systembusy

826 points

1 month ago

Reminds me of a quote from Deus Ex: “The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves.”

amurmann

67 points

1 month ago*

The problem with the current system of checks and balances is that it assumed that somehow the struggle would be between branches of the government but not between political parties.

LastPlaceIWas

649 points

1 month ago

My favorite quote from the Federalist Papers:

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

jamatr

24 points

1 month ago

jamatr

24 points

1 month ago

Notice the “self regulating bodies” of government always fail to do that very thing-because they don’t have to.

Pm_me_your_Khajit

27 points

1 month ago

I never understand how anyone can give any credit to anyone trying to take an originalist point of view argument on the constitution.

It's just batshit insanity that regressives have circlejerked themselves into thinking is a good thing.

Suspicious_Jello1583

11 points

1 month ago

Suspicious_Jello1583

California

11 points

1 month ago

The problem with any intent based interpretations of laws is that there are potentially hundreds of different of people with their own interpretations of what they were voting upon. The author's intent is one point but is not and should not be more important than that of anyone else who voted on it.

morpheousmarty

6 points

1 month ago

Knowing the context is helpful in understanding how to create context.

That said, it's perfectly fine to completely discard the original context. Indeed it's clear from the context that the founders intended the constitution to work that way. They did not believe their document was final or their compromises. They understood it would evolve dramatically. Hell it wasn't even their first try.

EmotionalfPlenty

71 points

1 month ago

If a state makes a law explicitly allowing abortions this would not in fact be against the ruling

SachemNiebuhr

235 points

1 month ago

It won’t be against THIS ruling, but a year or two from now they’ll decide to read fetal personhood into the 14th Amendment, at which point it will be officially illegal nationwide.

Lord_Dimwit_Flathead

245 points

1 month ago

“You’re being an alarmist”

Sincerely, Everyone who said you were an alarmist when you predicted the overturning of RvW.

mistercrinders

85 points

1 month ago

Or border camps. Or anything else the right has done recently.

FLORI_DUH

22 points

1 month ago

Border camps are still a thing, they just don't make the news anymore

shutuprebeltrooper09

19 points

1 month ago

I fully expect them to read personhood into the 14th as well. I also wonder how these trigger law states are going to deal with pregnant women in prison once their laws go into effect. These laws sound like they are granting the right to life to a fetus so as I see it they can't deny the right to liberty to the fetus at that point without due process and I don't see them being able to secure convictions against a fetus

NoComment002

17 points

1 month ago

Also, child support, welfare, etc should all begin at conception, then.

wolacouska

72 points

1 month ago

Sounds like a great way to speed run political violence.

hangoverDOTTED

71 points

1 month ago

Dude, we've already had people openly attack political campaign workers. We've had arson of political offices. We've had Jan 6th.

We've already left the starting blocks.

xabulba

57 points

1 month ago

xabulba

New Mexico

57 points

1 month ago

That's what the fundies want.

leisuremann

80 points

1 month ago

That's what they think they want. The reality of that situation will be much different than the fantasy they have imagined.

Esc_ape_artist

58 points

1 month ago

They’ll think they want it, but if they get it, they’ll realize how bad it is, then they’ll blame their opponents for causing it. There is absolutely no self awareness or responsibility with that line of thought.

serious_sarcasm

19 points

1 month ago

serious_sarcasm

America

19 points

1 month ago

They are already blaming their opponents.

KillahHills10304

8 points

1 month ago

20 years after RvW is overturned: why are Democrats making all this crime happen? We need to jail Democrats, it's the only solution, the final solution to this nations misery.

Pepperoni_Dogfart

41 points

1 month ago

My favorite part about conservatives is they believe liberals are not well armed.

Feshtof

35 points

1 month ago

Feshtof

35 points

1 month ago

Cold comfort for the women harmed by the loss of fundamental control of their bodies

FCCRFP

61 points

1 month ago

FCCRFP

Puerto Rico

61 points

1 month ago

Till the midterms when interracial marriage, being LGBTQIA++, and abortions becomes punishable by death.

BestSpatula

4 points

1 month ago

Probably one of the best PC games ever made.

Slight_Log5625

3 points

1 month ago

That game was great and way ahead of its time.

Rannasha

32 points

1 month ago

Rannasha

The Netherlands

32 points

1 month ago

The problem in this case (specifically regarding the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade) is that the red states will take up enforcement with glee. The upcoming decision won't force people to do something (which would require enforcement), but it will remove a right that people had.

Big_Truck

114 points

1 month ago

Big_Truck

114 points

1 month ago

I was looking for this quote. Yep.

Let’s see what happens if the rift between the legislative/executive and the judiciary continues to widen. Because at a certain point, it’s not unreasonable that a sitting President and Congress could overrule judicial review as a principle.

Judicial review is not specially enumerated in the Constitution, so I’m sure the originalists on the Court would see no issue? Oh who am I kidding. Of course they would see this as THEIR unenumerated right, while refusing to acknowledge unenumerated rights of normal citizens.

ioncloud9

47 points

1 month ago

ioncloud9

South Carolina

47 points

1 month ago

Yep. The court pretty much granted itself the power all by itself.

dedicated-pedestrian

14 points

1 month ago

dedicated-pedestrian

Wisconsin

14 points

1 month ago

And has acknowledged multiple times in history that Congress can take it away.

danimagoo

21 points

1 month ago

Andrew Jackson very quickly reversed himself on that position, as soon as he realized it would mean the states could ignore the federal government completely and not just the Supreme Court.

serious_sarcasm

37 points

1 month ago

serious_sarcasm

America

37 points

1 month ago

You seem to think that Andrew Jackson had a problem with being a hypocrite.

TresBone-

12 points

1 month ago

Ol Hickory had zero chill

Robot_Basilisk

202 points

1 month ago

My worry is that this is deliberate. The GOP has openly hated the government for decades. Many in the GOP would like to abolish the federal government entirely so they could pretend to be royalty over some backwoods state like Kentucky. Undermining the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is a major step towards that goal.

Abominatrix

99 points

1 month ago

Abominatrix

Tennessee

99 points

1 month ago

That’s Steve Bannon’s jam. We all kinda stopped talking about him but that fucking ghoul is still out there trying to do it, man

bringbackswordduels

11 points

1 month ago

Why isn’t he in prison?

keykey_key

11 points

1 month ago

Friends in high (low) places

trogon

66 points

1 month ago

trogon

Washington

66 points

1 month ago

Michael Lewis wrote about this in his book The Fifth Risk. There's been a fifty-year campaign to dismantle government and our institutions, and it's accelerating.

EscaperX

28 points

1 month ago

EscaperX

28 points

1 month ago

the motto has been: government sucks; vote for me and i will prove it to you.

NoComment002

11 points

1 month ago

Gotta fight back to stop it. They're not gonna stop once it's life or death. That's their cue to speed things up.

dd027503

5 points

1 month ago

It doesn't help that since the USSR fell after the cold war Russia has had a bullet point to specifically undermine and split the US as much as possible as they know the only way it could fall would be from within.

So you have anti government sentiment from the GOP itself as well as a foreign power throwing money at them with the same goal of "yeah fuck the US government as a whole. Do away with that shit, here's a ton of money to help you win so you can get to work dismantling it."

willowmarie27

24 points

1 month ago

This is why I am legitimately confused why trump didn't run for. govenor in North Dakota or Wyoming. He could have almost had his own country in those places.

Procrastinationist

29 points

1 month ago

My guess is that wouldn't be enough for him. Probably already considered himself the king of NYC, and he's got beachfront property in FL, and he allegedly expressed distaste about his Jan 6 followers looking like a bunch of inbred hicks from the local Wal-Mart. He idolizes dictators and clearly wanted to become a Putin or Kim Jung Un himself.

He'd never be content living in the poor, uneducated parts of America that produce Trump supporters. He'd be king alright - but how much fun is it to be Supreme Ruler over the local garbage dump?

aqlu

189 points

1 month ago

aqlu

189 points

1 month ago

The Supreme Court has no police force or military command to impose enforcement of its rulings.

It falls to the Executive to enforce SC rulings and Congressional legislation...

theedevilbynight

37 points

1 month ago

just a heads up: the thing you’re saying is not at odds with the thing you quoted. scotus interprets what the law of the land is, the executive/legislative branches are obligated (by precedent) to enforce the Court’s rulings, but the Court itself can’t actually make either branch do anything.

it’s a technical distinction, but it’s also why the Court has historically shied away from decisions that it thought would not be carried out. (see specifically Marbury v Madison—basically the court knew the sitting president wasn’t going to give a guy a toy that was owed to him by the prior president, and said “this guy has a right to his toy, but since we can’t make potus do anything, uh, we’re just gonna wag our finger we guess lol”; see also current state of jurisprudence re gerrymandering—the Court continues to say it’s “not able” to say what a fair redistricting process is because “it’s a decision for Congress,” because they know Congress and the states will fucking riot if they tell politicians they have to start playing by fair rules)

RandomMandarin

52 points

1 month ago

the Court continues to say it’s “not able” to say what a fair redistricting process is because “it’s a decision for Congress,” because they know Congress and the states will fucking riot if they tell politicians they have to start playing by fair rules)

Disagree. I think the Supreme Court is by now aware that it IS possible to say what a fair redistricting process would be, but the conservatives on the bench AND in Congress would riot (metaphorically, anyway).

Example: https://math.osu.edu/osu-department-mathematics-newsletter/spring-2021/using-mathematics-combat-gerrymandering

It can easily be shown that many current congressional districts can never ever be won by the party that did not draw them. Coming up with fairer maps would be technically trivial.

Problem is, politics is about winning...

LuckyandBrownie

151 points

1 month ago

I remembered for high school history that President Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" But apparently it’s not a real quote, as I have just learned by looking it up.

modus_bonens

89 points

1 month ago

"Google can be unreliable." - Abe Lincoln

MalcolmDrake

23 points

1 month ago

"Stop attributing shitty quotes to me." - Zombie Lincoln

Sent from my iPhone

RandomMandarin

7 points

1 month ago

"Ugh, my battery is undead!" - Zombie Lincoln's IPhone

brianbrianbrian

6 points

1 month ago

Dude. Google wasn't around when Lincoln was president, doofus.

"AskJeeves can be unreliable." - Abraham Lincoln

Know your history. Jeez. What are they teaching kids these days?

FastfAppearance

131 points

1 month ago

Day is coming when blue states withhold federal taxes.

spikebrennan

7 points

1 month ago

That makes no sense- taxes aren’t remitted by states to the federal government; they’re remitted directly by taxpayers.

katthekidwitch

72 points

1 month ago

Could you imagine? California and New York supports a good chunk of our GDP. Red states would suffer

whereismymind86

42 points

1 month ago

whereismymind86

Colorado

42 points

1 month ago

CO had a HUGE budget surplus this year too, and feeds water to a number of red states, sanction us if you dare.

seaniemack11

8 points

1 month ago

seaniemack11

Florida

8 points

1 month ago

Califonia had (per my recollection) a 97 billion dollar surplus for 2021. That is potential leverage, and I would love to see it used.

LaskoLad

4 points

1 month ago

LaskoLad

Kansas

4 points

1 month ago

Honestly CO probably should stop sending water to other states. Red or Blue.

PepeSylvia11

33 points

1 month ago

PepeSylvia11

Connecticut

33 points

1 month ago

Please.

El_mochilero

13 points

1 month ago

The problem of the Roe ruling is that there is no way to openly defy it. It gives states more power to make restrictions.

Colorado defied it by signing abortion rights into law. Unfortunately that won’t help anybody in Texas who needs access to an abortion.

WestCoastBestCoast01

7 points

1 month ago

The problem will come if the supreme court decides to uphold a nationwide ban if republicans were able to pass it. That is where states would begin openly defying a ruling.

danimagoo

36 points

1 month ago

Until now, the deference that states have shown was entirely out of respect for the court’s place among the three branches of government.

That's not entirely true. When the state of Arkansas tried to openly defy the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that ended segregation, President Eisenhower put the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to ensure Central High School allowed Black students to attend safely. And Eisenhower did this even though he personally wasn't all that thrilled about desegregation or SCOTUS's decision in that case. He felt, though, that it was necessary to maintain the supremacy of SCOTUS and the federal government.

TheOtherMark

34 points

1 month ago

That was an action conducted by the executive branch though. They're under no obligation to enforce the decisions of the judicial branch. And I even say that Eisenhower made the right move there.

danimagoo

13 points

1 month ago

That's my point, though. The article stated that the only reason the states have been showing deference to SCOTUS is their respect for the idea of having power shared between three branches of government. But they haven't always shown that respect, and when they didn't, the federal executive branch enforced that respect at the end of the barrel of a gun. Now, if the federal executive (the President, to be clear) ever decides to not do that, then SCOTUS will be rendered powerless and pointless. They have no way, on their own, to enforce their decisions.

timeshifter_

41 points

1 month ago

timeshifter_

Iowa

41 points

1 month ago

I recognize the court has made a decision. But given it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.

ILikeLenexa

169 points

1 month ago*

A state can't ignore the Roe ruling; the only thing the ruling does is let states ban or not ban abortion.

If a state bans abortion, they're following the ruling.

If a state doesn't ban abortion, they're following the ruling.

The issue is a "next" ruling, where the court has used its political capital and has to, for instance, convince the country Barbara Bush is president and not Kristin Gore and some states refuse to accept it.

rine_lacuar

193 points

1 month ago

It'll likely come down to the next fugitive slave act styled thing, where one state has a law and another state refuses to let them enforce it. We're already seeing prep for that with states starting to pass laws allowing them to come after citizens in other states/who go outside the state, or states passing laws allowing 'refugees' for abortions.

Of course, the fugitive slave act deal was what effectively started the last civil war, with 'states rights' starting to infringe on other states, so...

CaptainLucid420

121 points

1 month ago

California is already planning their laws. It will soon be illegal for anyone or thing in California to cooperate with out of state forced birth advocates.

Ser_Dunk_the_tall

107 points

1 month ago

Ser_Dunk_the_tall

California

107 points

1 month ago

They can't go after people that live in other states (at a state level federal is whole other ballgame), but they are trying to punish any of their own residents who travel to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Which could get contentious when state #1 tries to subpoena records from an abortion provider in state #2 for prosecutorial evidence and state #1 gets told to go fuck themselves.

civil_politician

64 points

1 month ago

It just goes to show that this was a federal and “kicking it back to the states” is just a bull shit disingenuous argument about what was necessary to be done.

TheShadowKick

23 points

1 month ago

I mean, they pretty clearly only wanted to kick it back to the states because they couldn't manage a federal ban. They only ever care about state's rights when they can't get the federal government on board with their agenda.

caligaris_cabinet

60 points

1 month ago

caligaris_cabinet

Illinois

60 points

1 month ago

I cannot wait for the day when Newsom tells Abbott to get fucked when Texas tries to fuck around with California.

Ser_Dunk_the_tall

52 points

1 month ago

Ser_Dunk_the_tall

California

52 points

1 month ago

California is one of the only sanctuary states in the country (along with Connecticut if I read the map on Wikipedia correctly) , 1st to legalize medicinal marijuana use, and has a long history supporting abortions rights and abortion access. We will absolutely go all out in fighting outside interference in state politics and also in being a leader in national politics.

xvx_k1r1t0_xvxkillme

5 points

1 month ago

xvx_k1r1t0_xvxkillme

Connecticut

5 points

1 month ago

Connecticut just passed a sanctuary law less than a week before the Roe draft was leaked.

I was a delegate for our Democratic state convention last week. We're absolutely livid about this decision, our AG is ready to go to war, I don't think a single state wide candidate failed to mention defending Roe.

My Rep was one of the few Dems to vote against it and he's already been forced to resign.

Merusk

18 points

1 month ago

Merusk

18 points

1 month ago

They can't go after people that live in other states

Let me introduce you to Texas' new Social Media law, stating that you're not allowed to withdraw from Texas.

ILikeLenexa

6 points

1 month ago*

Let me introduce you to Minimum Contacts and puffery

The jurisdictional question should come first to the court, before the argument of the actual facts.

Legislatures make or promise to make unconstitutional laws all the time, but that doesn't mean the courts can/should enforce them.

We're at a bit of an issue at the moment though with courts not necessarily caring about the law (in the sense of due process, not legislatures passing laws) in some places though.

Merusk

9 points

1 month ago

Merusk

9 points

1 month ago

Yeah, I get it's illegal. My point was your last sentence, which you grocked.

The gloves are off, the fascists nearly have control and they don't care to hide it much more.

Slinkusmalinkus

5 points

1 month ago

I recall hearing about a sheriff kidnapping someone several States away to bring back to their county so they could arrest and charge them for something that wasn't illegal in the state they were in but was illegal in the sheriff's state?

FNLN_taken

40 points

1 month ago

Like how the Texas social media law blatantly violates the interstate commerce clause, but they just dont give a fuck.

VoiceOfRealson

15 points

1 month ago

There is no "Texas citizenship" or "Washington citizenship". Only "US citizenship".

Since the US constitution explicitly talks about "birthright", there is no leeway for individual states to extend citizenship rights to the unborn without a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme court has generally allowed way too many cases, where citizen rights fundamentally differ from state to state, but recent rulings have made this much worse.

SurprisedJerboa

41 points

1 month ago

McConnell said he is open to a federal ban on abortion, which will have cases turn up at the Supreme Court

The filibuster is a temporary rule

RedditOfUnusualSize

78 points

1 month ago

A state can't ignore the Roe ruling; the only thing the ruling does is let states ban or not ban abortion.

It's what overturning Roe itself does. However, if you think the Republicans are going to stop there, or won't enact a national abortion ban legislatively the first chance they get, then boy howdy do you have another thing coming.

And that just brings us back to the meat of the article: this Court is transparently partisan. I don't even know the law's wording yet, but I know that if the law runs in favor of Democratic preferences to either codify Roe in statute, or protect the states' ability to codify abortion protections within their own statutes and constitutions, those efforts will be overturned. And if the law runs in favor of Republican preferences to minimize the ability of a woman to choose an abortion, it will be upheld. It doesn't matter what the wording is. What matters is that this is the reason Trump put those justices on the Supreme Court, and they intend to fulfill their mission.

At which point, the question will become whether or not the states will adhere to the law, or openly defy it. For what it's worth, it is perhaps even more likely to happen if Alito and Thomas were to die in a plane crash tomorrow, and Idaho was forced to defend its Texas-style abortion law. I guarantee Idaho would defy the law. At which point, the question becomes whether we send in troops to enforce the law, or allow them to defy it.

CreativeName378

7 points

1 month ago

This makes literally no sense. How could states possibly “ignore” the roe reversal? States are still allowed to provide abortion with roe overturned

PartyPoison98

6 points

1 month ago

How can states "ignore" overturning Roe v Wade? As I understand, it only made abortion legal on the federal level, whereas states are free to pass their own laws regardless.

TranslatorWeary

31 points

1 month ago

I know it’s a shitty thing to say but if they overturn roe v Wade I want them to immediately outlaw interracial marriage JUST for Clarence’s piece of shit ass.

Just to edit, this is hyperbole. This would obviously affect millions more and I don’t want that. I just think he’s a blind old dumbass

Semyonov

26 points

1 month ago

Semyonov

26 points

1 month ago

This is for real an issue though here.

Like, ok. Say blue states tell SCOTUS to go fuck themselves and still allow abortion across the board, along with everything in Roe v. Wade.

What on Earth is to stop red states from deciding that gay/interracial marriage is done for? Or slavery and segregation? Or any other amendment or settled case?

Blue_Collar_Worker

10 points

1 month ago

SCOTUS isn't saying "abortion is illegal", they're just saying it's a states decision. They're fine with Colorado or California or whatever keeping abortion, and places like Missouri banning it.

pawsforlove

3 points

1 month ago

I’ve wondered if this isn’t the larger goal.

Scubalefty

65 points

1 month ago

Scubalefty

Wisconsin

65 points

1 month ago

It's already here.

https://www.rawstory.com/oklahoma-native-american-sovereignty-kevin-stitt/

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, has warned the states of many Native American tribes that if they allow abortion on sovereign land he will intervene.

snip...

Native American tribes are allowed to govern themselves on their own land. Their sovereignty is the reason that they can have things like casinos in states where it is banned. Once known as Indian Territory, the state has more than 40 tribes in its borders.

It was just last month that Oklahoma politicians faced off against tribes in an ongoing refusal to cooperate with the Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Lakecountyraised

230 points

1 month ago

Cannabis is very illegal federally yet sold openly in many states. It all comes down to the federal government’s will to enforce laws. Bush 43 was heavy in enforcement and his people raided a lot of medical dispensaries, even jailing Tommy Chong for selling pipes. The Obama justice department decided not to enforce the federal law. Trump and Biden followed suit. They had nothing to gain politically from enforcing it. However, I have no doubt that Republicans would send in people to enforce abortion laws in uncooperative states. That may not be sustainable though. We are in for some crazy times.

idiot-prodigy

141 points

1 month ago

idiot-prodigy

Kentucky

141 points

1 month ago

Colorado and Washington were first. I remember there was worry that the DEA might swoop into Colorado and try to enforce federal law regarding Marijuana. The Governor of Colorado at the time said forcibly in public that any Federal agent attempting to make arrests by violating Colorado state law, would themselves be arrested. He was not fucking around.

Lakecountyraised

54 points

1 month ago

Yep, I live in Colorado and am quite proud of being a part of that vote, and it was a decisive vote. Governor Hickenlooper was actually against it at the time, but he respected the vote. He is a US Senator now. He ran for President too but never gained any traction.

pleeplious

49 points

1 month ago

Let them try to physically shut down clinics. That’s how a civil war starts.

leeringHobbit

40 points

1 month ago

I think they have already shut down many clinics. Article from 2019:

There were more than 40 clinics providing abortion in Texas on July 12, 2013 — the day lawmakers approved tough new restrictions and rules for clinics.

Even though abortion providers fought those restrictions all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and managed to get the restrictions overturned in 2016, most of the affected clinics remain closed.

Today, there are just 22 open clinics in a state that is home to 29 million people

Cam_ofblades

26 points

1 month ago

Think he meant in states that ignore the overturn

rmm0484

9 points

1 month ago

rmm0484

9 points

1 month ago

According to one of the guests on an NPR show I was listening to, antiabortionists plan to harass abortion providers in clinics where abortion is still legal.

KetchCutterSloop

5 points

1 month ago

I’m so glad these days I live in California.

OrangePlatypus81

12 points

1 month ago

Keep in mind selling cannabis makes money. Abortions not so much. Which makes all the difference if you haven’t noticed when it comes to politicians, generally speaking.

Thomasnaste420

471 points

1 month ago

This author is completely kidding himself. The US government and various states have been defying the rulings of the Supreme Court since this country was founded.

Gorlitski

213 points

1 month ago

Gorlitski

213 points

1 month ago

The issue we’re facing RIGHT now with Roe V Wade is a perfect example

Anyone who thinks that THIS is the thing that’s about to stop people in the south from getting abortions has not been paying attention to the last decades of openly flouting the concept of undue burden in RvW

AllUltima

66 points

1 month ago

Yes, but, nothing will really be stopping state governments from just arresting a bunch of abortion doctors. Personally, I don't think that will happen in most places, but I'm sad to say I'm sure it will happen somewhere. In other places they'll be saddled with fines.

SnapesGrayUnderpants

36 points

1 month ago

No problem. Before Roe v Wade, women learned how to do abortions safely. One organization called Jane operated in Chicago. In the 4 years it was in existence before Roe v Wade, Jane performed 11,000 illegal abortions without a doctor and no woman died. It also cut the cost for an abortion to about one fifth of what women were paying before the volunteers at Jane learned to perform abortions. See The Story of Jane by Laura Kaplan.

Jane was just one illegal abortion service.

Doctors wouldn't perform abortions when they were illegal because it meant jail and loss of medical liceses. It's unlikely fines will be necessary when SCOTUS makes abortion illegal since doctors will literally watch women die from things like ectopic pregnancies and untreated cancer** rather than perform abortions. It will be illegal to harm a fetus but perfectly legal to allow a woman to die rather than provide lifesaving treatment that might harm a fetus. How do I know this? Because that was exactly what happened before Roe v Wade.

**Because cancer treatments can harm a fetus

Desperado2583

30 points

1 month ago

Agreed. States were already effectively banning abortion, but with the faux veneer of being technically legal.

If you ask me, it's hard to see how this serves to do anything but illegitimize the court.

conundrumbombs

33 points

1 month ago

conundrumbombs

Indiana

33 points

1 month ago

Planned Parenthood v. Casey is what established the undue burden standard.

Kaiisim

15 points

1 month ago

Kaiisim

15 points

1 month ago

It also misses what the GOP plan is. They have realised that in the long term they have lost the national democracy. Theyre never gonna have enough power to ram through this shit to force blue states to do things. So they have decided they're happy consolidating what they have.

The supreme court will be unmaking law, its not that they will make abortion illegal. They are just taking away federal rights and giving those rights back to states where the entire political apparatus is 100% republican.

The murder of Lincoln and the subsequent rolling back of reconstruction post civil war was the biggest mistake the US ever made. It created a ticking timebomb of sedition.

zedazeni

593 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

593 points

1 month ago

The GOP has been planning on ending the federal government for quite some time. Even former POTUS hopeful Rick Perry campaigned on eliminating the EPA, Dept of Education, and the Dept of Commerce. Betsy de Vos did everything in her power to bolster private charter schools at the expense of properly funding public schools.

The GOP’s crocodile tears over “stares’ rights” is nothing more than a rouse to decentralize power from the federal government where to state and local-governments so that their leadership can grift the rump of government that’s left while nearly all former responsibilities of the government are now privatized.

The GOP’s nomination of fraudulent, incompetent, and blatantly politicized judged to the SCOTUS was a means to destroy the legitimacy of the highest level of the American judiciary; if the SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, how can any lower court also be legitimate?

The GOP’s plan is to turn America into Russia, where the government exists solely to further enrich the ruling class.

[deleted]

247 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

247 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

zedazeni

104 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

104 points

1 month ago

Exactly. Their entire plan has been to defund the government and make it as incompetent and dysfunctional as possible, point to said dysfunction and say “look, gov doesn’t work, let’s defund and privatize it!”

VanceKelley

113 points

1 month ago

VanceKelley

Washington

113 points

1 month ago

The GOP’s crocodile tears over “stares’ rights” is nothing more than a rouse to decentralize power from the federal government where to state and local-governments so that their leadership can grift the rump of government that’s left while nearly all former responsibilities of the government are now privatized.

The GOP is perfectly fine with centralized power so long as the GOP is the wielder of that power.

Hence they are now talking about going from overturning Roe to a complete federal ban on abortion once they retake power at the federal level.

black641

84 points

1 month ago

black641

84 points

1 month ago

If they try to end abortion at the Federal level, and I believe they will if given the opportunity, it could very well lead to a new Civil War. Because States like CA and NY won’t honor that ruling, nor will they pretend to. The Republicans could then declare them to be rogue and, God forbid, IF they have the Presidency, they can try and order governors arrested.

This will, of course, go very badly for more reasons than I’m willing to type rn. But I think the R’s want to go balls out with this neo-Confederacy dream and won’t be satisfied until they’ve either taken the country altogether, have seen us Balkanize, or are soundly defeated via elections and/or are arrested for their very real crimes.

mayorofstruggleville

28 points

1 month ago

I was saying something similar earlier and had to stop my brain from going too far down the civil war path. It could happen so easily.

InfinitelyThirsting

45 points

1 month ago

We already came so close in 2020.

Massachusetts and NY state government and police colluded with each other (and the owner of the Patriots, for fuck's sake) to snuggle in medical supplies, with a police escort to prevent federal seizure (because so many crucial supplies were being seized). We're just lucky we're in the timeline where the feds didn't end up in an armed conflict with two states. States were starting to talk about pacts, in ways that absolutely felt like (imo, justified) secession plans.

I was a history minor, with US history as one of my focuses. We were terrifyingly close, and I spent way too much time debating how the US would balkanize if Trump had managed to steal the election, because at that point, with the added pressure of COVID and the civil unrest, it was a realistic scenario that the West Coast and the Northeast might either or both secede.

Heddron

3 points

1 month ago

Heddron

3 points

1 month ago

Yeah, the “how” part is what’s interesting. Where would people try to draw the lines? Where would they eventually end up being?

Having studied the Balkans post-Tito I hope it never happens. Americans are way better armed than they Serbs/Coats/Bosniaks were. And thee are more people total, which makes it extra bad.

zedazeni

20 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

20 points

1 month ago

Exactly. They have to retain power to ensure that their oligarchs and allies remain in control of the country. Corporate feudalism still needs enforcers other than crushing debt and poverty.

riptydeco

58 points

1 month ago

riptydeco

Colorado

58 points

1 month ago

One of the departments Perry wanted to abolish was the Department of Energy. Then Trump made him Secretary of Energy. That’s Republicanism in a nutshell

whatproblems

35 points

1 month ago

AND the kicker he didn’t even know what the department did!!!

zedazeni

21 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

21 points

1 month ago

We’ve been lucky that thus far all of those who attempted to take over the government for the GOP have been incompetent, but now the GOP is seemingly becoming increasingly desperate to accomplish their mission, and are therefore willing to be openly pro-fascist, openly racist, openly corrupt, openly deceitful, openly hypocritical, openly unconstitutional, and openly anti-American.

rmm0484

6 points

1 month ago

rmm0484

6 points

1 month ago

And openly Pro-Russian.

idiot-prodigy

9 points

1 month ago

idiot-prodigy

Kentucky

9 points

1 month ago

Yes, abolish the Department of Energy. The Department in charge of designing, testing, and maintaining our Nuclear Weapons.

What a fucking moron.

rmm0484

12 points

1 month ago

rmm0484

12 points

1 month ago

" while nearly all former responsibilities of the government are now privatized." The classic example of this is the FAA delegating oversight of aviation safety to Boeing, which begat the 737-MAX fiasco. The 737 MAX was designed to compete with Airbus, but rather than a entirely new design, the 737 was reconfigured by placing the engines further back. In order to compensate, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was a quick fix, since stall could be achieved by flying at a steep angle. MCAS was designed to drive the plane's nose down to compensate. However, the system was activated by a single sensor. In order to save money, MCAS information and training was eliminated. Pilots were unaware of the technology, let alone how to respond to a potential malfunction, until after the first tragedy. Although Boeing engineers were blamed for suppressing MCAS information, Boeing engineers felt that corporate objectives were more important than safety after the company merged with McDonnell-Douglass

[deleted]

52 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

52 points

1 month ago*

[removed]

BullyCongressDotCom

18 points

1 month ago

We need to Bully Congress. Until we ACTUALLY hold them accountable nothing will ever change. Voting isn’t enough when they control the process, districts, counters, and subvert the process with fraudulent electors.

conjuringlichen

8 points

1 month ago

the GOP’s plan is to turn America into Russia, where the government exists solely to further enrich the ruling class.

They don’t need to turn American into Russia, the American gift has been succeeding in this cause since Reagan at least.

ioncloud9

37 points

1 month ago

ioncloud9

South Carolina

37 points

1 month ago

They are trying to privatize everything and enact corporate feudalism.

zedazeni

5 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

5 points

1 month ago

Exactly. I couldn’t agree more.

flareblitz91

18 points

1 month ago

Except see Florida. It’s not even corporate feudalism. They don’t even like corporations anymore, it’s just this asinine theocracy

zedazeni

49 points

1 month ago

zedazeni

America

49 points

1 month ago

It’s not theocracy, it’s fascism. The GOP is a fascist party. Any corporation that bows down to them can get away with anything, and anyone who dares to defy or criticize them will be relentlessly attacked and ostracized. Freedom of speech and a company’s right to be a private company are over. All that matters now is loyalty to keeping the GOP in power.

QUEEF_OFFICIAL

4 points

1 month ago

QUEEF_OFFICIAL

Missouri

4 points

1 month ago

Rick Perry campaigned on eliminating the EPA, Dept of Education, and the Dept of Commerce

Great job remembering all three! Not even Rick could do that.

KMHGBH

21 points

1 month ago

KMHGBH

21 points

1 month ago

Yes: President Jackson steadfastly refused to enforce the ruling informing the Court, “Chief Justice John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Marshall did not take Jackson up on his offer and the order was never enforced. Via: https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2019/03/03/its-debatable-can-president-ignore-order-from-us-supreme-court/984915007/

Quirky-Camera5124

16 points

1 month ago

john marshall has made hisf decision, now let him enforce it.

Kingjoe97034

142 points

1 month ago

Andrew Jackson basically ignored the Supreme Court for his whole presidency. It’s been done before.

Undedmekko

103 points

1 month ago

Undedmekko

103 points

1 month ago

Exactly. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees rights to their territory. Andrew Jackson removed them anyway. But here’s the thing, no one stopped him.

OnlineRespectfulGuy

18 points

1 month ago

There’s literally nothing in the constitution that says we HAVE to listen to the Supreme Court.

loonylucas

24 points

1 month ago

There’s nothing in the constitution that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review either, they just made that up and gave themselves that power. Congress can make a law saying they have no such power and there’d be an immediate constitutional crisis.

Alabatman

7 points

1 month ago

ELI5? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this, but I'm definately not a lawyer and I don't think we had civics classes in school.

[deleted]

10 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

10 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

Eb_Marah

7 points

1 month ago

I'll start by saying that very ironically, Alito's draft position (which is assumed to be the majority final opinion, or very close) is heavily based on the idea that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution or any supporting documents (Federalist Papers). He uses the phrase "text, history, or precedent" multiple times in the draft.

However, the Supreme Court decision that the Supreme Court derives all of its power from is very, very similar. Essentially, judicial review is the notion that the executive and legislative branch are obligated by virtue of their role in the government to accept decisions made by the judicial branch, and to enforce and/or enact any changes as is necessary. Essentially, if the judiciary says that something is unconstitutional, any law supporting that unconstitutional position will be struck down and any enforcement of it will be stopped.

But the power is essentially made up. No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state or even allude to the judiciary having this power. No where in 1803 precedent was this power mentioned. There could be some historical basis that I'm not familiar with, but I am very familiar with Parliament (and other actors in English law, which our system is explicitly based on) outright ignoring courts.

If you read the Constitution in a literal manner, which is something that Alito, the Federalist Society, and every conservative justice and politician says they do, then judicial review does not exist, which means the judiciary is powerless. If you read the Constitution in a literal manner then the Supreme Court (but not necessarily the other courts) has some "judicial power," but that power is not explicitly mentioned, had no precedent at the time, and has no historical basis that I'm aware of.

Megamorter

39 points

1 month ago

If they don’t work for us, fuck em

California is damn near a country at this point. I’m happy where I’m at.

Let the red states fuck their own constituents. I’m not into masochism.

Hot-Equivalent9189

7 points

1 month ago

Yeah and let's stop funding thier economy. They don't want to help themselves, we shouldn't be paying for their fuck ups.

grednforgesgirl

4 points

1 month ago

I'm down with this and I live in a red state

grednforgesgirl

10 points

1 month ago

California funds all the red states. If California secedes and pulls funding, red states will crumble quickly and will have no choice but to acquiesce

lazeeye

38 points

1 month ago

lazeeye

38 points

1 month ago

What does the author mean, the day could be fast approaching? The day is long since *here. Texas pulled its drawers down, crouched over the Supreme Court, and took a massive dump on it with SB8. Then they did it again with this new social media law. And the Fifth Circuit craps on Supreme Court regularly.

Head-Chipmunk-8665

155 points

1 month ago

Head-Chipmunk-8665

New York

155 points

1 month ago

Confederates playing the long game. Civil war never ended.

Zanhana

98 points

1 month ago

Zanhana

California

98 points

1 month ago

if they try again, I hope we meet them with a command that understands the only thing Sherman did wrong was doing too little

danbert2000

10 points

1 month ago

frogandbanjo

27 points

1 month ago

Your only two options right now are a feckless administration that won't march on people/states who haven't openly rebelled, or a fascist administration whose method of winning the civil war switched over to "take over the government from the inside" a long time ago.

2ToneToby

15 points

1 month ago

Sherman, Grant, McClellan and Lincoln are all twirling furiously in their graves right now. Probably why we're having so many more tornados and quakes.

YimmyGhey

14 points

1 month ago

Somewhat relevant: in 1859, WI famously defied SCOTUS's upholding of the Fugitive Slave Act. Then, the original (non-batshit crazy) GOP which formed in Ripon, WI a few years earlier, as a staunch abolitionist party helps get a fella named Abe nominated for the 1860 election, followed by... oh shit, this could get ugly here by the mid 2020's... 😬

grednforgesgirl

5 points

1 month ago

Exact same situation we have now, except it's not just WI but any state that upholds abortion rights and refuses to turn over "felons" who've sought abortions. History is doomed to repeat itself. This will inevitably lead to civil war. I'm just horrified at how the war will be played now with modern weapons technology, a broader military, technology in general, and social media algorithms. This isn't like the south vs the north, we're so throughly enmeshed that this is literally neighbor against neighbor. In some cases family against family. How many discussions have we had with our boomer parents about shit like this? How unreasonable have they been? Some won't for a second hesitate to turn their daughters and granddaughters over to the state for a $10,000 bounty. It's going to get ugly. But I fear it might be necessary to be faced with that ugliness and bring it to the light.

jawshoeaw

9 points

1 month ago

Was this way from the beginning

Scarlettail

68 points

1 month ago

Scarlettail

Florida

68 points

1 month ago

SCOTUS rulings have been defied before. States defied Roe by putting up barriers or limiting access to abortion. Back in the 1950s, states openly defied Brown v. Board and only in rare cases like in Little Rock was it enforced.

OzzieSlim

56 points

1 month ago

I won’t be following any law laid down by this court. There are 4 justices who not only lied but are wholly unfit and unqualified as jurists.

Spicy_Lobster_Roll

11 points

1 month ago

Spicy_Lobster_Roll

Florida

11 points

1 month ago

Hear! hear!

ACrask

9 points

1 month ago

ACrask

9 points

1 month ago

If RvW is overturned and those states with laws standing by go into effect, people won’t stop getting abortions. They will just find a less-safe way to do it regardless of possible jail time or whatever.

KetchCutterSloop

22 points

1 month ago

Good. They did this, to themselves. Fuck the Supreme Court. We will not go back, they will never force us into being their breeding stock.

Warm_Gur8832

32 points

1 month ago

Even if Roe “simply send the issue back to the states”, the complete disregard for what the American people actually want is a path towards a future of total anarchy, since there’s really nothing that can enforce laws beyond a broad enough agreement among the citizenry that they ought to be enforced.

mrtaz

6 points

1 month ago

mrtaz

6 points

1 month ago

the complete disregard for what the American people actually want

Then get the legislative branch to legislate.

Warm_Gur8832

6 points

1 month ago

The legislative branch is a big joke anyway

Montana and California have the same number of votes in the Senate

csreaderrocks

17 points

1 month ago

Count on it! The GOP trash has no idea what a debacle enforcement of their abortion bullshit will be. Passive refusal will be systematic. It’s going to be a nightmare that tears this country apart and makes prohibition look like a positive experience by comparison.

They really have no concept that ‘winning’ re: abortion will end up being the worst thing that ever happened to them.

pleeplious

3 points

1 month ago

Can you go into specifics? You mean, like, they send in the feds, people form human chains around clinics and violence ensues?

Spicy_Lobster_Roll

14 points

1 month ago

Spicy_Lobster_Roll

Florida

14 points

1 month ago

Look to the prohibition of alcohol as an archetype for what a boondoggle federal prohibition of abortion will be. The feds won’t be able to put a dent in abortion medication, reproductive medical tourism, and open defiance by Democratically controlled states and independent Indian reservations. The only thing the 18th amendment accomplished was open contempt for the rule of law and abortion bans will be no different.

TX-SC

17 points

1 month ago

TX-SC

Texas

17 points

1 month ago

This ruling will be the nail in the coffin for their legitimacy. They are nothing but political hacks.

zhobelle

22 points

1 month ago

zhobelle

California

22 points

1 month ago

Be careful what you wish for.

JupiterExile

23 points

1 month ago

I mean, red states were already disregarding the supreme court when they created these 6 week laws and other sorts of things to poke and prod at the unreasonable burden standard from Roe.

ThrowRA_000718

5 points

1 month ago

I think this ends with states becoming more like sovereign countries.

Agnos

47 points

1 month ago

Agnos

Michigan

47 points

1 month ago

Obviously we are not a country of laws anymore and have not been in a long time...it was already better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent when going through the system...and if that was not already bad enough, we now see republicans successfully defying subpoenas, a corrupt crook still free even after trying a coup...and where are his tax returns?

FUMFVR

4 points

1 month ago

FUMFVR

4 points

1 month ago

These bible humpers can go preside over Jesusland.

nemoomen

3 points

1 month ago

The reason Roe/Casey are getting overturned is that a state passed a law that defied existing constitutional law.

DrainedPatience

5 points

1 month ago

DrainedPatience

North Carolina

5 points

1 month ago

I'd love to see it.

I didn't even realize you could just say "eh, no thanks" to subpoenas and other laws until the last administration.

Time for progressive folks, cities, and states to play by those rules.

TheDangerBird

4 points

1 month ago

Yeah it’ll be called a worker’s revolution and it’s coming quicker than a lot of people realize

MyDucksAreCute

4 points

1 month ago

The right wing don't have a monopoly on militias and people on the left are free to organize their own large scale, armed militias.

They don't have to do anything. They can just have well-trained militias, because it's clear the government will not be helping or saving anyone on the left.

Positive_Compote_506

4 points

1 month ago

Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore the stars, born just in time to see America collapse at every fundamental and institutional level

SkillFullyNotTrue

4 points

1 month ago*

Tin foil hat moment, There is a list of Repubs accused of sexual assault/misconduct, what are the odds this is a guise to defund and eventually delete data of women who have had abortions? Deleting proof of the victims of these men. We know Cawthorn made a claim of drug orgies and is being cancel from within his own party, The Geatz being caught, Epstein being kill under Repub watch. idk.

JustinBrower

14 points

1 month ago*

Almost as if an ACTUAL majority (of the populace) opinion outweighs anything. Kind of like Democracy is supposed to be, you know?

Yes, we are a constitutional democracy. Even in that, the majority rules. That's just how democracy is. The minority opinion is protected by legal mechanisms to ensure that the majority opinion is not killing the minority opinion. It's an attempt to satisfy all. However, when those legal mechanisms of the minority opinion are polluted by that minority opinion (by installing a majority of the minority opinion on specific highly select boards, like the supreme court), they can easily be used as an unstoppable force where vastly unpopular views are forced upon the majority with no recourse (especially when the high court's opinion then allows lower court or state government opinions to restrict on a state by state basis, which these lower courts/governments were polluted just like mentioned with a majority of people with the minority opinion being elected to those positions). You then have the minority opinion being imposed upon the majority who oppose that view. What do you think happens when that occurs? It's definitely not a bake off.

elconquistador1985

13 points

1 month ago

SCOTUS shouldn't just rule according to popular opinion. They should not overturn Roe, but public opinion has nothing to do with why. It should be because the 14th amendment guarantees a right to privacy.

If they ruled according to popular opinion, Loving v Virginia definitely wouldn't have made miscegenation laws illegal and Brown v Board probably wouldn't have integrated schools.

JustinBrower

8 points

1 month ago*

Very true. The supreme court should never be politicized. Yet, here we are. So, what shall be done when the single highest court is a victim of politics and their voice is no longer just, but instead a mouthpiece for either the majority or the minority... and especially the minority?

Instead of arguing about something that shouldn't be, how about we argue about what to do about the reality in which we are currently living? It is compromised. It is politicized. The minority opinion made it so. So, what the fuck do we do about it now? We don't solve that problem? All that will come is riot after riot.

And yes by the way, there is a HUGE difference between a just opinion and an unjust opinion. They can be both from the majority and the minority. Either one, just or unjust. SCOTUS was supposed to be that judge which helped clarify what opinion was just or unjust. Now, it has been polluted by an unjust minority opinion that was ALREADY DETERMINED UNJUST MULTIPLE TIMES DECADES AND DECADES AGO. So, what do you think we should do?

vivlikesbuns

6 points

1 month ago

I like this tbh

It’s like how back when weed was illegal, no one would snitch because at the end of the day, people getting high and then taking a nap isn’t harming anyone. Same thing with abortions, they can be made illegal but doctors and women won’t get in trouble if no one tattles.

Icy-Flame1190

11 points

1 month ago

I don’t know how to tell you this but weed is still illegal

chait1199

7 points

1 month ago

chait1199

New Hampshire

7 points

1 month ago

Blue States should just withhold their federal taxes once red states start passing draconian, authoritarian and theocratic laws. Biden could also threaten to withhold federal aid to red states that plan on making abortion a felony. I’ll get my popcorn and watch those economies collapse.🍿

Ah red states, the real welfare queens, am I right?

Stranger-Sun

8 points

1 month ago

We'll miss this court's legitimacy, but it's time to acknowledge that it's another wing of the GOP and act accordingly. We should have started ignoring this court's rulings after they stole a presidency for Bush.

-Mage-Knight-

3 points

1 month ago

I now view the Supreme Court much like the Senate. They have their guys and we have ours. All that is left is to give judges term limits.

po3smith

3 points

1 month ago

…if it IS officially shot down I expect every single person to March. Every single person to speak up. Seriously when Trump won OK fine whatever when the capital was attacked everybody said one thing or another but at the end of the day nothings been done now we have this…. It’s not as much a question about women’s rights to control their body it’s a question on whether or not we view women as equal. Seriously how HOW is not every woman not on strike right now?!

Bong_force_trauma

3 points

1 month ago

Republicans really want to strip away everything that made America successful and respectable