For some reason the Gilead authoritarians just can't seem to stop themselves from shoving their feet down their own throats.

Commander Thomas' latest remarks have a surreal disconnect to them that seem oblivious to the US constitution and the role of public servants.

I'm guessing from the way he's saying the current generation should be good little serfs and accept what their betters have decided for them that he doesn't regard himself as a public servant and that First Amendment US constitution rubbish doesn't really apply when it comes to God's anointed.

A few years ago when Ireland had its first openly gay Taoiseach I remember reading some articles on liberal British and US publications which were fawning all over this and congratulating Ireland for joining the 21st Century.

At the time I thought this was both ironic and patronising. The Taoiseach in question was quite conservative and was against gay marriage for quite some time and still against gay adoption and previous to this Ireland voted in same sex marriage by referendum by a landslide, it's enshrined in our constitution now. And we've since voted for abortion. Ireland at the time of the writing the articles was already one of the most forward thinking and progressive places in the World. We don't even have any elected party in our government who have an anti-immigration stance. Our last election, when a couple of new nationalist parties emboldened by Brexit and Trump popped up, proved this to be political suicide.

Fast forward a few more years and the tables have, sadly, completely turned. We're watching in horror the US sliding backwards, regressing, and threatening to become a similar implicit theocracy we left behind.

It's a very sad state of affairs.

An impossible divide where one side seems remarkably intent on limiting the rights and freedoms of their fellows even while supposedly being proud of their nation's vaunted liberty.

Can't even begin to imagine what young women of low income will have to face in these states - consigned to a lifetime of emotional and financial expense just to conform to the religious sensibilities of those in power.

It has to be stated, repeated, thrown into every conversation that the American public overwhelmingly support access to abortion. It's a failing in democracy when a majority can limit the freedoms of the minority, but that isn't even the case here - this is a special interests minority forcing others to conform to their beliefs.

It can't stand - the SC cannot be in the business of contracting the rights and freedoms of the citizens - they're failing at the most fundamental level to serve their people.

Obviously they should increase the amount of justices, by a lot. That way no individual justice would have 11% of the final say like now. Something like 18 or more.
They also should investigate Kavanaugh and if any of the over 4000 tips that the FBI buried turn out to reveal serious crimes, impeach him. Chief justice has them investigating the leak, but not Clarence Thomas' conflicts of interest.
Unrelated, but obviously any politicians found to have committed moderate or serious crimes should be led away in cuffs like any other non-politically connected person is. As of now they're hardly even prosecuting serious felonies. Insider trading, insider dealing, statutory rape. This is a total clown show at this point. How can we believe when they say no man is above the law? Everyone knows that's horseshit. Fuck Merrick Garland too.

I'm not sure that more would solve anything if half or more of that greater number were still just as willing to overturn the rights and protections of a vast swathe of the citizens nominally under their judicial protection.

It would make it better, and possibly lead to better outcomes. Say a hypothetical President Susan Collins or Mitt Romney might appoint more moderate justices prone to taking the job seriously. In that case one sourpuss or two would be less likely to vote in a partisan way. I think it could only be equal or better than having 9, but not worse. If I'm overlooking something feel free to enlighten me, this is my own take.

ETA - also one lawless president alone, and a turtle-looking old crow wouldn't have the opportunity to appoint 1/3 of the bench. (Trump and McConnel)

The problem is the intrinsic disconnect between what the Supreme Court is supposed to do:
Analyse the legal arguments and come to a consensus through clear logical reasoning peer reviewed by other justices on what the law actually should mean in practice without fear or favour.

As opposed to what it actually does:
Produces politically partisan decisions based on whatever the agenda of the politicians who appointed the justices was, regardless of what the law and applied practicality predicts.

Alito's opinion is so laughably partisan and at odds with knowledge of current science and society that even an non-lawyer like myself can see the clear insanity of basing 21st century law on the musings of a 17th century witchfinder. That the other 5 Gilead justices backed it up without dissent makes it even worse.

More members of the court would at least improve the possibility of learned dissent based on actual logic, but the ridiculous politically partisan nature of the court makes it manifestly obvious that its only function now is to provide a fig-leaf of justification, no matter how laughable, for whatever agenda has already been decided by those who put them there.

It may as well be merged into the Senate or done away with entirely since as it currently stands it is no more than a device for manipulating US law through political patronage and machinations.

I understand all that. That's what I meant by a "moderate" theoretical Republican president appointing serious judges in the future. Judges who take the job seriously, rather than being so partisan. It's not going to be abolished anytime soon. That probably wouldn't make it better if it was. The last administration put scores of extremist federal judges in place in courts below the supreme court. My idea probably won't happen either, but at least some legislators have expressed support for adding more judges to it.

As a result of the appointment of the likes of Kavanaugh, δικάζω has become δικάζομάι ...

Some of the follow-up bills being prepared now in red states amount to nothing but theocracy - the American right once again ideologically aligning itself not with its fellow rich, pluralistic democratic nations, but with deeply impoverished and fanatically religious autocratic nations it pretends to be the antithesis of.

Where's Rand Paul on this, looks a lot like big government taking away freedoms to me.

Alan C wrote:Where's Rand Paul on this, looks a lot like big government taking away freedoms to me.

That would require a degree of logical consistency.

I think you'll find politicians, especially right-wing politicians, even more so "libertarian" politicians, just don't do that.

Possibly it's because their variously contradictory "sincerely held beliefs and principles" disintegrate under any kind of logical analysis.

Strangely, I find their actions all make far more sense if you assume they operate out of purely criminally corrupt self-interest rather than apply any other sort of logical ideology or philosophy to them. Can't imagine why that is the case.

Alan C wrote:Where's Rand Paul on this, looks a lot like big government taking away freedoms to me.

Rand Paul is one of the very few who can sometimes be accused of consistency - fair play, it is only consistency within a libertarian asocial utopian paradigm, and also completely inane, but he's more likely to oppose this than most of his party.

But you're spot on that this is the 'talking point' - there's not much bigger government than one which believes it can control your body.

They did it. They fucking did it.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Bader Ginsburg should have resigned while Obama was still president, although it probably would have taken more than that to avoid this.

Shame

Caper wrote:Bader Ginsburg should have resigned while Obama was still president, although it probably would have taken more than that to avoid this.

Senate would have just blocked anyone who even faintly resembled RBG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk