USA Supreme Court of America ( SCOTUS) and their extremist right wing agenda.

[Aristotle Pickett]

Lol blame the voters. Not Hillary, for being a terrible candidate who ran a s**t campaign, and the Democrats who did all they could to ensure this terrible candidate won the primary. Or for appealing to the voters who didn’t vote for her. Or now, the Democrats showing that they are utterly inept at dealing with a judicial coup.

White supremacy cult won that election.

 

[Seeds]

You don't get it.

Voters aren't interested in the status quo anymore. Voters aren't interested in voting for the lesser evil anymore. "Vote for me or my oponant will destroy America". What does that even mean anymore? They are disenfranchised. They are looking for something better.

You can keep blaming voters if you want tho. It doesn't matter.

If the choice is between a lesser evil and a much bigger evil then not supporting the lesser evil ends up supporting the bigger evil. Cos thats how two horse races work. How is this hard to understand?

sure vote for sanders as the democratic nominee. But once he is out of the race then vote for the lesser evil. The choice not to do that is now going to cause massive suffering to the innocent (and has already). And thats not only on those who advocated for it but on those who could of stopped it and choose not to. Cos it made them ironically feel better.

and it does matter. It completely matters. thats the point. We need to take responsibility for our actions.

would you honestly still not vote for hillary in 2016 knowing that if like minded individuals such as yourself did vote for her like they did for biden it would of saved roe vs wade? not to mention prevented all the other things trump and the conservative supreme court have done (and will still do for the next 20-30 years). Its changed the course of US history that election in favour of conservatives. And you still would not vote for hillary knowing this? Cos ....

 

[Seeds]

Hillary Clinton hired a bunch of incompetents who had her campaign in states that she had no chance of winning while ignoring those that were line ball. She eschewed most public appearances throughout August 2016 and instead devoted that month to closed door megadonor fundraisers with the press locked out. It was a historically bad campaign.

Overwhelmingly, people who voted for Sanders in the primary voted for her in the general election. But there'll always be some who won't, and apparently better to tut tut them than wonder how such a woeful candidate was given a red carpet to the nomination, and how pretty much everyone involved in a senior level on such a terrible campaign still have positions of power in the party 7 years on from their embarrassing failure.

dont get me wrong I know sanders got screwed over by hillary backers and the democrat elite during the democratic nomination. It was an utter disgrace. But it doesnt change how left wingers should of voted at the 2016 presidential election cos the stakes were so big.

And your first paragraph explains why all of the left should of known they had to vote for her at the 2016 election. Cos her poor campaign pointed her to potentially losing. They also knew that some judges were being replaced on the supreme court and the next president would probably get to choose a couple of them. We all knew this before the election.

 

[The Sultan]

Was going to write my option on the direct ion the US is heading but as the say a GiF is worth a thousand words

 

[Freo Big Fella]

For a group of supposed constitutional originalists, there's a fair old bit of assumption and made up doctrine in the decisions handed down over the past couple of weeks.

Think we're rapidly reaching the point where a Democratic President with legislative control simply adds another three justices. They want to play politics, accept dodgy treatment from politicians and generally play at legislation? Then treat the court like the political body the justices have turned it into.

 

[Seeds]

For a group of supposed constitutional originalists, there's a fair old bit of assumption and made up doctrine in the decisions handed down over the past couple of weeks.

Think we're rapidly reaching the point where a Democratic President with legislative control simply adds another three justices. They want to play politics, accept dodgy treatment from politicians and generally play at legislation? Then treat the court like the political body the justices have turned it into.

They dont have legislative control. They may not ever again.

 

[Present Not Past]

The US Supreme Court has just made a second controversial decision in as many days by ruling that some business owners can refuse to serve gay couples on religious grounds.
What exactly are the religious grounds?
How many people say that they are religious, yet demonstrate no religious tendencies whatsoever?
This seems to be just a free pass for bigots to indulge in their bigotry.

 

[E Shed]

The US Supreme Court has just made a second controversial decision in as many days by ruling that some business owners can refuse to serve gay couples on religious grounds.
What exactly are the religious grounds?
How many people say that they are religious, yet demonstrate no religious tendencies whatsoever?
This seems to be just a free pass for bigots to indulge in their bigotry.

That’s exactly what it is. For these people religious beliefs means some kind of divine sanction for indulging cruelty, hatred & fear of the other.

It has nothing to do with the message of Christ for example.

Probably even worse for Muslims although the Promise Keepers type Christianity would give the Taliban a run for its money in oppressing women & other kinds of prejudice & control by the church.

It’s theocracy writ large for white nationalists.

 

[Seeds]

The US Supreme Court has just made a second controversial decision in as many days by ruling that some business owners can refuse to serve gay couples on religious grounds.
What exactly are the religious grounds?
How many people say that they are religious, yet demonstrate no religious tendencies whatsoever?
This seems to be just a free pass for bigots to indulge in their bigotry.

So if being religous is bigotry. Why dont we ban religion?

i think we should consider it.

religion is what all the religious leaders choose to believe and tell their flock. Its not what agnostics thought jesus advocated.

 

[Maggie5]

The SC has often stated in the past that they do not take up cases as it doesn't have any legal standing yet they took this case up when if hadn't even happened. It was a hypothetical case, 'what if'... .

What a disgrace!

This is only the beginnging, hopefully the Dems can take back the House and increase their majority in the Senate and start impeachement on Thomas and Alito.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Debt forgiveness gone too.

The US is a failed state. Shithole country.

Incredible …judges ruled that elected President doesn’t have the power to make that decision with shoddy reasoning …yet these unelected judges somehow do have the power to make this type of decision.

 

[Satan]

Incredible …judges ruled that elected President doesn’t have the power to make that decision with shoddy reasoning …yet these unelected judges somehow do have the power to make this type of decision.

And are unacountable

 

[owen87]

And are unacountable

Untrue; they're accountable to the wealthy folk who fund their lifestyles!

 

[bourbons]

So you want a dictatorship just one that you support?

I'd say in this instance the perjury angle has some merit. They swear to tell the truth in confirmation hearings yeah?

 

[bourbons]

The US Supreme Court has just made a second controversial decision in as many days by ruling that some business owners can refuse to serve gay couples on religious grounds.
What exactly are the religious grounds?
How many people say that they are religious, yet demonstrate no religious tendencies whatsoever?
This seems to be just a free pass for bigots to indulge in their bigotry.

Can businesses refuse to serve Christians on religious grounds now as well?

Seems only fair, somehow I think the ruling on that one might be a bit different lol

 

[Satan]

Can businesses refuse to serve Christians on religious grounds now as well?

Seems only fair, somehow I think the ruling on that one might be a bit different lol

Dont discriminate against the Dees

 

[maskmcgee]

I'd say in this instance the perjury angle has some merit. They swear to tell the truth in confirmation hearings yeah?

Stating facts is not perjury. When they made those statements it was fact. There was precedent. It had been challenged and upheld. The finding of Roe v. Wade was what Barrett says in that image. They also were all directly asked if they would overturn it, and they all refused to answer, as every nominee does about every specific case. Even if they did answer that they wouldn't overturn it, changing your mind is not perjury. I completely support abortion, but I looked at the consitution. It dosen't have the word 'abortion' in it. So finding that the consitution dosen't protect abortion rights isn't perjury either. They also didn't ban abortion. They ruled "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

A lot of people think the court legislates. It dosen't, it referees. It does not have the power to 'ban' things. The law and the consitution do. If the court voted 9-0 that the second amendment dosen't garuntee the right to bear arms to private citizens, it wouldn't be ruling a ban on guns. It would then allow congress to write a law banning guns. It would also allow them to not.

 

[bourbons]

Stating facts is not perjury. When they made those statements it was fact. There was precedent. It had been challenged and upheld. The finding of Roe v. Wade was what Barrett says in that image. They also were all directly asked if they would overturn it, and they all refused to answer, as every nominee does about every specific case. Even if they did answer that they wouldn't overturn it, changing your mind is not perjury. I completely support abortion, but I looked at the consitution. It dosen't have the word 'abortion' in it. So finding that the consitution dosen't protect abortion rights isn't perjury either. They also didn't ban abortion. They ruled "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

A lot of people think the court legislates. It dosen't, it referees. It does not have the power to 'ban' things. The law and the consitution do. If the court voted 9-0 that the second amendment dosen't garuntee the right to bear arms to private citizens, it wouldn't be ruling a ban on guns. It would then allow congress to write a law banning guns. It would also allow them to not.

I mean.. there's also "its settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court" and "Thats the law of the land I accept the law of the land".

I'd suggest the only rebuttal for those is the change of mind, as you've mentioned. Surely no one believes thats what actually happened lol

 

[Maggie5]

Stating facts is not perjury. When they made those statements it was fact. There was precedent. It had been challenged and upheld. The finding of Roe v. Wade was what Barrett says in that image. They also were all directly asked if they would overturn it, and they all refused to answer, as every nominee does about every specific case. Even if they did answer that they wouldn't overturn it, changing your mind is not perjury. I completely support abortion, but I looked at the consitution. It dosen't have the word 'abortion' in it. So finding that the consitution dosen't protect abortion rights isn't perjury either. They also didn't ban abortion. They ruled "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

A lot of people think the court legislates. It dosen't, it referees. It does not have the power to 'ban' things. The law and the consitution do. If the court voted 9-0 that the second amendment dosen't garuntee the right to bear arms to private citizens, it wouldn't be ruling a ban on guns. It would then allow congress to write a law banning guns. It would also allow them to not.

Those quotes were taken from a lengthy interviews by the participants so unless you heard the complete hearings of those four, not sure you can claim they didn't perjurer themselves.

 

[maskmcgee]

Those quotes were taken from a lengthy interviews by the participants so unless you heard the complete hearings of those four, not sure you can claim they didn't perjurer themselves.

So you listened to the entire set of interviews and are they was a point where they are perjuring themselves?

 

[Maggie5]

So you listened to the entire set of interviews and are they was a point where they are perjuring themselves?

I did to the last two. I would have to rewatch to see if they did but I wouldn't make a statement purely on what was posted.

Whether it was perjury or not, their responses were well crafted legalese and gave the impression that Roe V wade was settled law... .

 

[Gethelred]

Thats just nonsense.

Point of order.

'I disagree with something' does not equal 'You're talking nonsense' or 'That doesn't make sense'. When you use these things interchangeably, it makes me wonder about whether you just cannot countenance ideas that you don't initially agree with.

 

[Gethelred]

If the choice is between a lesser evil and a much bigger evil then not supporting the lesser evil ends up supporting the bigger evil. Cos thats how two horse races work. How is this hard to understand?

That's the thing, though: an American election is not a two horse race because there's a third option, abstaining from voting.

One of the consequences of Clinton's candidacy was that she was not as popular with the Democratic base and thus could not draw people to vote in the way necessary to let them win over Trump. A failure to recognise this when choosing a candidate during the primaries is a fault of the party, not the voters.

sure vote for sanders as the democratic nominee. But once he is out of the race then vote for the lesser evil.

You misunderstand: Bernie Sanders would have won the primary, but the superdelegates chose Hillary. This is not the first time it's happened, either; Roosevelt was made the nominee by the superdelegates after losing the primary.

Because there was a genuine feeling of betrayal within Bernie voters, a significant amount of people who would have voted Democrat suddenly chose to abstain from voting, which is their right within a democratic process.

When you take voters for granted, this is rather what happens.

The choice not to do that is now going to cause massive suffering to the innocent (and has already). And thats not only on those who advocated for it but on those who could of stopped it and choose not to. Cos it made them ironically feel better.

I dispute whether it made them 'feel' better - they turned out in record numbers to vote Biden in - but I take genuine issue with you blaming them for the actions of other people.

The American political process has disenfranchised a substantial portion of the population, and 2016 was the final straw for any number of them from both a left and right wing perspective. For righties, Trump shifted the Overton window to the alt right and emboldened them to say the quiet stuff out loud instead of pandering to the moderates; for lefties, they had the opportunity to have a genuine socialist as president only to have the establishment neoliberal democrats (with whom they were in an uncomfortable alliance with in the first place) flip him for the most establishment candidate since Bill.

When a current equilibrium reaches breaking point, a new one is found. Affecting the pretense that the old settling point is where things still are is like pretending an umbrella will protect you from a hurricane.

and it does matter. It completely matters. thats the point. We need to take responsibility for our actions.

...

This is the silliest thing in your post, Seeds.

Will Joe Manchin every have to take responsibility for the lives he has ruined in this electoral cycle? What about Biden's unflinching advocacy and protection of the police state and the war on drugs, will he at any point be held accountable for that? What about George W Bush and war crimes? Obama and drone strikes?

Will the Koch brothers ever be held accountable for their corruption of political process? The NRA for the murders they enable? Will Mitch McConnell ever be held accountable for the women he has murdered in refusing to allow Obama to promote a justice to the Supreme Court in his final term, resulting in the overthrow of Roe?

Why is it that it's the voters who have to take responsibility for their actions, but those with the actual power get off scot free?

This is what I mean when I say 2016 was the breaking point. At that point, too much of the nation was too willing to discard the old status quo and run with something (ANYTHING) different that it did not matter what it was.

would you honestly still not vote for hillary in 2016 knowing that if like minded individuals such as yourself did vote for her like they did for biden it would of saved roe vs wade?

This is such a loaded question Seeds.

Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court lapsed after more than half a year of Congress refusing to hold a vote. They didn't even reject it; they refused to uphold governmental norms. They chose not to do the task of government, with the overturning of Roe being the specific impetus to do so.

What makes you think that, in the event of Hillary winning in 2016, they wouldn't have just done the same damn thing? They flagged it in the leadup to the election; perfectly happy to continue to delay and reject the notion of due process until they got what they wanted.

not to mention prevented all the other things trump and the conservative supreme court have done (and will still do for the next 20-30 years). Its changed the course of US history that election in favour of conservatives. And you still would not vote for hillary knowing this? Cos ....

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

2016 changed things, absolutely, but this is a different world now.

 

[happy_eagle]

You misunderstand: Bernie Sanders won the primary, but the superdelegates chose Hillary. This is not the first time it's happened, either; Roosevelt was made the nominee by the superdelegates after losing the primary.

This is not correct.

Without super delegates, Hillary still had over 3.7 million more votes than Bernie, and over 450 more pledged delegates.

 

[Fire]

This is not correct.

Without super delegates, Hillary still had over 3.7 million more votes than Bernie, and over 450 more pledged delegates.

That's a misleading stat tho. Hillary got off to a good start, but Bernie really exploded as they approached the midway point. But once it was clear that the superdeliates were going to come in over the top, Bernies momentum died. People who would have voted for him either didn't bother to show up, or voted Hillary for the sake of unity. There was a media blitz in the second half of the primaries all saying Hillary had ot won. In a country with voluntary voting, that's fatal.

Without superdelegates, Bernie would have won confortably.