Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Know What I Hate MK I

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Shakanaka View Post
    This is all fucking crazy.
    I mean kind of. But the Republican Party has made it clear for the last 50 years that their goal was to overturn Roe v Wade and that they were planning to do so by getting control of the court system. They've been really transparent about what they were planning to do. Honestly with a 6/3 majority on the Supreme Court it would be crazier if they didn't do the thing that they've spent decades working to try and do.

    Comment


    • The overturning of Roe Vs Wade has energized the pro-lifers here in Canada and they want to follow suit. So far all the major party leaders have stated that they will not remove abortion rights and I hope they are right.


      What in the name of Set is going on here?

      Comment


      • I hate that Borris Johnson, the PM of the UK, seems to understand why the Roe v Wade decision was bad from a conservative perspective better than most conservative people in the US seem to.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          I hate that Borris Johnson, the PM of the UK, seems to understand why the Roe v Wade decision was bad from a conservative perspective better than most conservative people in the US seem to.
          Perhaps that just means he isn't a proxy of whatever the oppressive christian reich is over in the UK. I've not really known the UK to be too steeped in theocratic nonsense, but I'll admit i don't actually keep up with UK news. Here in the US, the republicans jumped in bed with the theocratic lobby pretty early, then they let in the white nationalists and misogynists when it looked like they were losing any relevance. Not sure if the UK has a party with that kind of "pedigree".

          Comment


          • I'm not from the UK, so my understanding of things is second hand here:

            But yes, the Torries absolutely are in bed in the UK's theocratic assholes and other radical right extremists, but parliamentary politics lets them hold a bit of distance because those tend to be small parties with just a few seats in the conservative government (and most elections the Torries don't need them to hold power anyway) which gives the Torries more resilience against being pushed into places they don't want to go compared to the Republican party where there isn't an overt external political alliance in the form of a multi-party governing coalition.

            You could say the Torries are in a political situation not to dissimilar from the US Democratic party: they have such a strong hold on the center-ish base voters that they can squash any serious external opposition from less center groups, but need to convince those that generally support the less-center groups to keep voting for them anyway by offering up enough populist policies that keep that portion of their base happy.

            For now, it's in the Torries best interests not to use abortion as an issue to keep far right groups happy and in line (they have other ones they're far from milking for this purpose), because it would cost them far more on the center than it would gain them on the right. If that math changes, the UK could easily lose the right to abortions in a matter of months because there's extremely little in the UK system to stop that from happening if the current majority wants it to. A lot of pro-choice activists in the UK are worried because the enduring conservative majority has started doing a lot of the opening moves of just a bit more restrictions here, and limiting some access there, that seems to be testing the waters for how much they could further solidify their hold on conservative voters by moving in an anti-choice direction.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
              I hate that Borris Johnson, the PM of the UK, seems to understand why the Roe v Wade decision was bad from a conservative perspective better than most conservative people in the US seem to.
              Even Donald Trump is on record saying that this will be bad for the conservative agenda. Trump

              Comment


              • Eh. He specifically put three Justices on the Supreme Court having promised to only pick judges that would do this. He's saying it because one of his few skills is understanding popular opinion, not because he actually understands why it's bad for the courts to blatantly toss long standing and repeatedly litigated precedent in the trash on partisan lines. Trump had the power to not allow this to happen by not playing McConnell and the Federalist Society's game, but didn't because that might have actually gotten him convicted of either impeachment. I'm not giving any credit to an arsonist that's standing and watching a building he set on fire burn pontificate about how bad that looks for the people that gave him the fuel and the lighter.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lysander View Post
                  The overturning of Roe Vs Wade has energized the pro-lifers here in Canada and they want to follow suit. So far all the major party leaders have stated that they will not remove abortion rights and I hope they are right.
                  Yup. Brian Jean (for non-Albertans: major player in Alberta's provincial politics) advocated for the Conservatives trying to stack the deck in the Canadian Supreme Court the same way the day before Roe v Wade came down. Very much feels like the Conservative party has been internally couped back into the Reform Party, which is not great with their leadership race coming.

                  Anyhow, stateside SCOTUS has continued to be trash today, reopening the door for compulsory prayer in public schools. Sure, kids don't HAVE to participate... but there will be places where kids who don't don't get As. Or don't get put in by their coach. Or just plain get fucking ostracized.


                  Patreon | He/His Pronouns | Currently Writing: Daughters of Hera (Scion, SP Nexus) | Rome 2e (CofD, ST Vault, very not official)

                  CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (WIP) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf

                  Comment


                  • To expand on that with my list of the 6-3 trash decisions by the theocratic assholes:

                    Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District: Kennedy was a football coach that prayed after games. The school was actually pretty careful and fired him specifically for praying while he was supposed to be supervising students. In Kennedy's contract, he is supposed to maintain a professional secular demeanor as a public employee while actively supervising students, and that includes watching students after a game until every student was release from the school's care (aka picked up by their parents or otherwise dismissed to go home on their own). So, taking time after a game, but before students were dismissed to pray openly in front of all the students is a direct violation of the terms of his employment contract that outlines how to balance personal expressions of faith while an employee of the government that's not supposed to engage in promoting one religion over others. The theocratic members of the court decided that this was a violation of his first amendment rights towards both freedom of expression and freedom from the establishment of religion. On it's face, it's bullshit and this should have been a no brainer. If you're supposed to be watching kids, it's not a violation of your rights to fire you for not doing your job because you want to pray before work time is over, and so you do so very publicly so you can claim you're still with the children instead of outright leaving to pray in private. If he'd just waited until after the students were dismissed, this wouldn't be a problem.

                    What's especially galling about this particular case is that the theocrats paint this obnoxious picture of some coach being persecuted for quietly and privately kneeling in prayer after a game. But as the dissent points out this is a massive lie. In a true rarity, a SCOTUS ruling has pictures to show what this praying actually looked like:


                    Is that a man quietly praying between himself and his creator?

                    Of course, not. That's a coach leading a religious service on school grounds during school time.

                    Comment


                    • I have to say that the whole judicial career in the US is appalling to me for its general lacking of technical criteria. I'm not sure of how much that contributes to the problem in the Supreme Court, but the idea of people voting in judges and prosecutors instead of them being a bureaucratic career just doesn't sits right to me.


                      #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                      #AutismPride
                      She/her pronouns

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                        I have to say that the whole judicial career in the US is appalling to me for its general lacking of technical criteria. I'm not sure of how much that contributes to the problem in the Supreme Court, but the idea of people voting in judges and prosecutors instead of them being a bureaucratic career just doesn't sits right to me.
                        Verily. It's ALMOST as bad as the fact that our presidents don't actually have to be screened for COMPETENCE, or any actual knowledge of politics/diplomacy/law, or even background checked for criminal history/foreign bias/etc..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Second Chances View Post

                          Anyhow, stateside SCOTUS has continued to be trash today, reopening the door for compulsory prayer in public schools. Sure, kids don't HAVE to participate... but there will be places where kids who don't don't get As. Or don't get put in by their coach. Or just plain get fucking ostracized.
                          oh I have an idea; if they're so deadset on forcing their inane prayers to their insipid god down the throat of every other citizen, and in a public school paid by public funds no less, then for every one of those schools that takes up this nonsense, a fundamentalist church needs to be razed. We don't need two non-taxed institutions using up available development space when something actually useful can be built there instead. And since they're goal is to do all their proselytizing and preaching in public school they don't need their churches anymore. This will teach them to play at government when they don't pay taxes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                            What's especially galling about this particular case is that the theocrats paint this obnoxious picture of some coach being persecuted for quietly and privately kneeling in prayer after a game. But as the dissent points out this is a massive lie. In a true rarity, a SCOTUS ruling has pictures to show what this praying actually looked like:
                            The district had said that if he prayed alone it wouldn't be an issue. What happened was that after the school told him to stop doing public prayers, he publicized that he would be holding a "personal" post-game prayer, and did so in a way encouraging people attending the game to come down onto the field to join with him. After that game, a lot of people rushed down onto the field and ended up knocking down and injuring some students (cheerleaders and band members who were still on the field). According to the school district, that's why they chose not to renew his contract at the end of the year, because 1) he wasn't praying by himself and 2) his actions had caused students to be injured.

                            In its ruling, the Supreme Court ignored all of that and took the position that his contract was not renewed only because he was praying by himself. They completely ignored the district's argument that the refusal to renew his contract was due to the fact that he was not prating by himself and that his actions had gotten students injured (even if just lightly).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                              I have to say that the whole judicial career in the US is appalling to me for its general lacking of technical criteria. I'm not sure of how much that contributes to the problem in the Supreme Court, but the idea of people voting in judges and prosecutors instead of them being a bureaucratic career just doesn't sits right to me.
                              This is another one of the problems with the US's patchwork system where each state has their own methods, and the federal government has it's own method. So in totality it's a giant mix of elected judges and prosecutors, appointed ones, and ones for whom it's a bureaucratic career.

                              Ultimately, this isn't a huge impact on the SCOTUS itself. The SCOTUS's main job for most of its existence has been to sort through the mess of all of that and make the system more uniform.

                              The flat out biggest problem is that unlike every other member of the US judiciary, SCOTUS justices enforce the laws that govern their behavior themselves. So, Justice Thomas, who has objectively violated the law by not recusing himself from a case that directly involved his wife, is also the only judge that's allowed to rule on if he broke the law, and if so what punishment he should face. Guess what he picked to do?

                              Any system where the people responsible for enforcing the law get to oversee themselves is inherently corrupt. How they get selected causes lots of issues, but the fact that after they're picked there is no way to stop them from doing whatever they want to do is worse.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darksol-aeternium View Post
                                Verily. It's ALMOST as bad as the fact that our presidents don't actually have to be screened for COMPETENCE, or any actual knowledge of politics/diplomacy/law, or even background checked for criminal history/foreign bias/etc..
                                Actually president candidates aren't screened for competence or knowledge almost anywhere because that would make for another way to weigh in social inequalities in politics and to interfere with results. It is a popular idea, but plain bad in practice. By the way, Lula, one of the most brilliant politicians in Brazil like him or not, and one of the most well-regarded in the world, would probably be unable to pass such a screening as he has almost no formal education.

                                Background checks are also a complex matter as they have the same problem. We're talking political rights here, creating limitations to such rights isn't a light matter. Imagine how much some people would try to abuse the criminal system to eliminate political competition, specially during and after authoritarian periods. Lula, again, was blocked from competing in an election through this measure, and we don't even have a thorough check, just something for reasonably recent and specific political crimes (the whole matter was very controversial and is currently considered illegitimate entirely, but the damage is done).


                                #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                                #AutismPride
                                She/her pronouns

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X