Supreme Court Ruling time again

[petee]

Ani Defranco

my ex was(is?) a big ani defranco fan, we saw her once.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Another case tearing down the wall between religion and state:

MSN

www.msn.com

I expected this Supreme Court ruling season to be a bad one. They managed to make it worse than I believed possible.

 

[spring-peeper]

Another case tearing down the wall between religion and state:

MSN

www.msn.com

I expected this Supreme Court ruling season to be a bad one. They managed to make it worse than I believed possible.

So, would that mean that a Muslim coach can pray with his players in a similar fashion?

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

So, would that mean that a Muslim coach can pray with his players in a similar fashion?

don't be silly now

 

[spring-peeper]

don't be silly now

I'm not.

I just want to make sure that the ruling can be applied equally.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So, would that mean that a Muslim coach can pray with his players in a similar fashion?

In theory, yes. However, given the way they've "misinterpreted the facts" to get the ruling they wanted, I'm certain they'd just interpret them another way if they decided they wanted different results.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

For anybody interested in the US Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe v Wade, I'd highly recommend the Five Four Podcast. For years it has been chronicling how the religious fundamentalist, far right justices on the US Supreme Court have been gutting civil liberties, eroding the separation of church and state, inoculating the wealthy and religious elites from democratic oversight and trashing environmental protections. However bad you think this is, I guarantee you'll discover its worse the more you look into it:

5-4

5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It’s a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court’s most important landmark cases, and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped...

www.fivefourpod.com

 

[Anju]

In theory, yes. However, given the way they've "misinterpreted the facts" to get the ruling they wanted, I'm certain they'd just interpret them another way if they decided they wanted different results.

This article is saying that because they misrepresented the facts the ruling may not make it legal for a public school employee to pray with their students. Basically as they pretended that the coach in question was praying privately, despite his media tour and photos of him praying surrounded by students the ruling effectively only relates to taking a moment for private prayer, which is already allowed after a different case from 1992.

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is a big victory for the religious right, but only because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of the case.

www.vox.com

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This article is saying that because they misrepresented the facts the ruling may not make it legal for a public school employee to pray with their students. Basically as they pretended that the coach in question was praying privately, despite his media tour and photos of him praying surrounded by students the ruling effectively only relates to taking a moment for private prayer, which is already allowed after a different case from 1992

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is a big victory for the religious right, but only because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of the case.

www.vox.com

The coach clearly led the player in prayer. One player testified that he felt he wouldn't get any playing time if he didn't participate. That is coercive and clearly unconstitutional if they're ruling in real facts and not made up ones.

Yes, they've left the lowers courts a lot of confused rulings that don't make sense. I think what they've tried to do is to leave courts that would like to ok public prayer the leeway they need to justify it. It will drive a bigger wedge into the country, and give the far right cults that would like to see a theocracy emerge some feeling that the Supreme Court is sympathetic to their cause.

I see that some elected officials are openly calling for theocracy now, saying that the church should actually be superior to the government. That's some Taliban shit right there:

MSN

www.msn.com

Video in the link.

 

[frogwoman]

Listened to that 5-4 podcast on Roe V Wade as mentioned by Jeff Robinson , Kavanaugh's justification that 'the constitution is not pro choice or pro life, the constitution is neutral', absolute bat-shittery

 

[frogwoman]

Like you'd have thought that the commandment against idolatry would apply to the constitution as well.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Christ, this is a shocker. Apparently at one point, Clarence Thomas did not ask a question during oral arguments for 10 FUCKING YEARS. Imagine that, keeping schtum instead of ever seeking clarification or testing the position of parties whose dispute you're meant to be resolving! What motivated him to finally pip up? Apparently he was concerned about a law that deprived domestic abusers of the right to purchase firearms. Seriously fuck this fascist idiot. Hurry up and die you fat old prick!

 

[NoXion]

Christ, this is a shocker. Apparently at one point, Clarence Thomas did not ask a question during oral arguments for 10 FUCKING YEARS. Imagine that, keeping schtum instead of ever seeking clarification or testing the position of parties whose dispute you're meant to be resolving! What motivated him to finally pip up? Apparently he was concerned about a law that deprived domestic abusers of the right to purchase firearms. Seriously fuck this fascist idiot. Hurry up and die you fat old prick!

He's achieved one of the highest legal offices in the country, and would you believe he's still sore about liberals holding him back? The fact that bigots turned him down for work after he completed law school, because they thought he had made his way through Affirmative Action, is all the fault of liberals apparently. The spiteful fucker's got a massive chip on his shoulder.

 

[frogwoman]

He's achieved one of the highest legal offices in the country, and would you believe he's still sore about liberals holding him back? The fact that bigots turned him down for work after he completed law school, because they thought he had made his way through Affirmative Action, is all the fault of liberals apparently. The spiteful fucker's got a massive chip on his shoulder.

I don't get how that's the fault of liberals though?

 

[NoXion]

I don't get how that's the fault of liberals though?

Liberals are in favour of Affirmative Action, and people turned him because they thought he benefited from it, therefore it's the liberals' fault.

I found this NYT article, which would seem to support my assertion that Judge Thomas bears a massive childish grudge:

Last year, in a conversation with two of his own law clerks, recent law school graduates chosen for their conservative views, Justice Thomas said he intended to remain on the Court until the year 2034.
Why that long? one asked. Because that would give him a 43-year term, he replied, according to the clerk's account, explaining, "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
The notion that Justice Thomas could use his position to reflect the emotions he bears from the confirmation hearing was first suggested, strangely enough, by his wife, Virginia.
Immediately after the confirmation fight, Mrs. Thomas gave an interview to People magazine describing what she and her husband had just gone through. In the article, in the issue of Nov. 11, 1991, Mrs. Thomas expressed her belief that Dr. Hill had been in love with her husband. And she recounted how the Thomases had got through the ordeal by holding hands, praying with friends and listening for hours to prayer music. Alarming to Court
Many at the Court, including some justices, thought the article bizarre because it disclosed the kinds of things that justices usually believe should be kept private. But a quotation from Mrs. Thomas stirred a different kind of concern, said a lawyer who has spoken with some of the justices about it.
"Clarence will give everyone a fair day in court," Mrs. Thomas said. "But I feel he doesn't owe any of the groups who opposed him anything."

The lawyer said the suggestion that Justice Thomas's resentments might figure in his jurisprudence had alarmed some people at the Court.

 

[Graymalkin]

Liberals are in favour of Affirmative Action, and people turned him because they thought he benefited from it, therefore it's the liberals' fault.

I found this NYT article, which would seem to support my assertion that Judge Thomas bears a massive childish grudge:

Doug henwood had an episode of his 'Behind The News' podcast back in 2019 devoted to the life and political philosophy of Clarence Thomas. Don't have time to find it now but its less than hour and quite illuminating.

 

[frogwoman]

 

[Yossarian]

Wow, what better time to sharply limit the EPA's ability to do anything about climate change. Fucking maniacs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Wow, what better time to sharply limit the EPA's ability to do anything about climate change. Fucking maniacs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/

These fascist maniacs are an existential threat to humanity

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Wow, what better time to sharply limit the EPA's ability to do anything about climate change. Fucking maniacs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/

Stick a fork us. We're done. I've been arguing for a while that we're just going to talk about climate change, while doing fuckall. The upper-class just won't allow us to do anything meaningful. By the time the average person really sees how fucked we are, it will be far too late.

I remember taking a tour of a fossil bed. The tour guide spent a couple of minutes speculating on what will replace us and someday look down at our bones. These idiots just increased the odds of that exact scenario.

<edited to add>
I shouldn't be surprised. Justice Gorsuch's mother was Anne Gorsuch:

Anne Gorsuch Burford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Plumdaff]

Women have no bodily autonomy, non viable fetuses are sacred, but everyone else can die.

Dangerous theocratic fascists.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

How the dissent ends:

"The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints it-self—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision- maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening."

 

[Plumdaff]

Is there any chance that this is hubris and it will prompt some belated action against the court?

Oh fuck, this is the Democrats we're talking about.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Thread documenting all the fascist shit this court has done in just one term:

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

They're starting to accept cases for this next year's term. This case could end independent/free elections in the US if they rule in favor of the Republicans:

MSN

www.msn.com

If they do, it will give them a broad power to control redistricting, elections, and even overturn results. We would no longer be a democracy in anything other than name.

 

[frogwoman]

They're starting to accept cases for this next year's term. This case could end independent/free elections in the US if they rule in favor of the Republicans:

MSN

www.msn.com

If they do, it will give them a broad power to control redistricting, elections, and even overturn results. We would no longer be a democracy in anything other than name.

Wtf? Didn't they verify Biden as the President though, or am I missing something?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Wtf? Didn't they verify Biden as the President though, or am I missing something?

Yes, they did. This is for elections in the future. Many red states are making laws to control elections that lower courts have ruled against. The SC taking this case, probably isn't a good sign for the future.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, they did. This is for elections in the future. Many red states are making laws to control elections that lower courts have ruling against. The SC taking this case, probably isn't a good sign for the future.

If they carry on down this path they do know they could end up taking the country to war right?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

If they carry on down this path they do know they could end up taking the country to war right?

All of the right-wingers I know think they'll win.

 

[8ball]

All of the right-wingers I know think they'll win.

In terms of the side the military takes?