Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Given that it's Virginia, which is a Democratic trifecta, I think the cut cable probably is accidental.
Yeah, I was going to say. Nowhere in that quoted excerpt did I see any evidence or mention of sabotage.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'd probably argue for a registration extension no matter what, even a few hours could disrupt people.
Still, this is an argument for registering early and not leaving it to the last minute.
If people knew anything about my university career, that last statement would out me as a massive hypocrite.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Oct 13th 2020 at 2:25:13 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The Supreme Court will not allow a Bush Jr. FDA order that would regulate Abortion Medication to return in effect
. Due to Covid, a federal judge in Maryland issued a Nationwide Injunction against the Order, in place since 2000, that forced Women to only be able to receive the drug through Doctors. The Trump Administration tried to put the law back in place, but the Supreme Court declined to hear their case. And of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the law should remain active. This is the Court's first Abortion-ruling since RBG's passing.
Well, Barrett seems pretty well-qualified for the court, given her answer regarding her not considering Roe v. Wade "super-precedent"
.
They way they're defined in scholarship, Barrett said, are "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe," in the confirmation hearing she said, "which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
Barrett went on to say that that scholars "across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it's not a case that everyone has accepted."
She said among the small handful of cases that are considered "super-precedents" are Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that outlawed racial segregation in public schools, and Marbury v. Madison, which in 1803 gave courts the authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional.
The funny part is that, like the Gorsuch nomination, the primary objection isn't so much her qualifications, but rather the circumstances in which it's occurring.
To be fair, she did say "among the small handful", meaning there were more that she didn't mention.
Edited by ironballs16 on Oct 13th 2020 at 4:59:28 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Has her opinion on Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission been asked for, yet? Overturning Roe and Lawrence might be moderate threats to human rights but Arizona woule be a moderate threat to democracy, and without democracy human rights are nothing more than a chimera.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI mean. Her logic chain is:
- Super-precedent means something that is so ironclad in our law that nobody on any side of the political spectrum would even question it.
- You are, right now, questioning me about my opinion of a controversial precedent, to find out which side of an existing set of battle lines I rest on.
- Therefore, by virtue of having battle lines and needing to question me about my position among them, this cannot be considered a super-precedent.
Which isn't exactly wrong. A precedent cannot be unquestionably accepted by everyone, everywhere and also controversial at the same time. And while I think most of us would agree that Roe v. Wade is a correct precedent, I doubt anyone here would claim that there is no controversy surrounding it on either side of the political spectrum.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 13th 2020 at 2:07:39 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Just wanna say this made me read the opinions of Obergefell v Hodges and man. Fuck Scalia and Roberts. Seriously.
And RBG Had suggested Diane Humetewa
should be hte next Supreme Justice. But I know nothing of her.
Edited by Aszur on Oct 13th 2020 at 3:22:44 AM
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI’ve got $5 that says both Steve King and Trump would like to get Brown overturned.
Sure there’s not an active movement to overturn Brown right now, but does anyone really think that it’s not still controversial amongst segments of the population?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe problem is that there is no solidity behind this concept of "super-precedent". Something is only a "super-precedent" if no-one wants to challenge it, not if no-one can challenge it.
So Brown vs Board of Education could lose it's "super-precedent" status if there is a case brought before the court. (The ![]()
puts it better)
I wonder however if it is worth unpacking this distinction further. Ok, so by her definition Roe is not a super-precedent. Is Griswold a super-precedent? I'm wondering if there have been any challenges recently on that decision. Following on from that, what importance does a super-precedent case have on subsequent decisions? Because as I understand it, Roe was argued as an extension to the right to privacy established within Griswold. (Someone correct me if I am wrong). So in theory, overturning Roe also suggests that Griswold was incorrectly decided - which shouldn't happen because Griswold is super-precedent because no one is challenging it.
Just idle curiosity... and I am wondering if it is worth bringing up because actually I do think the religious conservatives, if they succeed in overturning Roe would move rapidly on to Griswold so whilst it might be worth asking the question I suspect that I would not like the answer.
Edited by singularityshot on Oct 13th 2020 at 2:29:55 AM
They want to arrest back-alley abortion doctors and the women who get abortions.
They don't actually think it would prevent abortions. Republicans don't believe that the things they oppose can be stopped. They don't think prostitution laws prevent prostitution, they don't think the War on Drugs prevent drugs, they don't think that immigration crackdowns will prevent immigration, and they don't think overturning Roe v. Wade will prevent abortions.
Republicans aren't interested in prevention. They're interested in punishment. They know these things that they hate will always exist, but their ideal world is one where people who participate in those things can be beaten and jailed.
Conservatives are champions of "normalcy", forever seeking to persecute "deviant" behaviors.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 13th 2020 at 2:33:34 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That was the critique of Battlestar Galactica's episode with Roslin outlawing abortion.
Basically, "You can tell this episode was written by a man because the banning of it isn't going to lower abortions, will kill women, and isn't going to help any survivors. It's meant to be a hard moral choice but there's no actual inclination to even fantasy morality."
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I will point out that Griswold v. Connecticut was cited for a number of other cases that probably rankle religious conservative types, including both Lawrence v. Texas and more importantly, Obergfell v. Hodges. So while discrediting that case isn't on the current plans of religious conservative groups, it's not out of the question for it them to start pursuing it in the future.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Some of the red states might pull back from outright banning contraception or reintroducing sodomy laws. Because big businesses might withdraw as a consequence.
NASCAR and college football were enough to get Mississippi to take the Confederate Battle Flag off their state flag, for example.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Given that it's Virginia, which is a Democratic trifecta, I think the cut cable probably is accidental.