The US Supreme Court and its decisions

ATTENTION: If you had an account that was created before September 1st 2021 you will need to re-create your account again. We apologize for this inconvenience. This should not happen again.

Coglestop

Grand Emperor of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
The ONLY hope is that this can convince enough people to vote dem this November to allow us to keep and possibly increase our hold in the House and Senate. Maybe with larger majority in both houses we could POSSIBLY return to having a justice per circuit the way it was before the civil war. The way things are going, this country is gonna turn into a fascist hellhole within the next decade.

It's like we saw Edrogan's rise in turkey and Putin's rise in Russia and said, as a nation, yes, let's do that.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
Pathetic. I don't know how the 5 people who voted for this can sleep at night. **** 'em, every last single one.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
And a monday ruling cuts the 4th amendment for all the other alphebet soup, not just the border patrol. So that's it: individuals that are above the law, and a government where precedent does not matter.

My prediction is simple: the supreme court will continue to slowly strip away your basic, constitutionally deriven rights while they watch the outcome of the 2022 election. If there's no chance for republicans to pick up the majority of power, it will continue to be a slow stripping. IF the republicans pick up enough power in the 2022 elections: there will be ever increasing acts of violence (some of it real, most of it actual false flags.) so they can declare martial law before the election and they will simply "appoint" a president. Where in the american republic dies.

I do not know what comes next, but I know this: there will be blood and terror.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
I'm nowhere near being ready to predict 2022 and 2024, I just know it doesn't feel good. Going to take one hell of a blowback to this ruling to change our fortunes and I just don't know that we'll be able to sufficiently distract from the stupid inflation numbers.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
Apparently it was 6-3, so that ruled out the "recusing to hang the verdict" anyways.

What was this ruling that supposedly cut out 4th amendment for all the other agencies? All I recall hearing is the whole border zone thing and it's hard to make a point about it if you can't provide the source.

As for holding the Senate and House, honestly the best option at this point is to make a concentrated attempt to take control of all state legislatures. If we're going to try to use the ballot box still, local and state elections just became 10000% more important, especially since that's how the Rs involved got their power in the first place - taking the local and state elections then using that to gain leverage for Federal. Unless you can get a Constitutional amendment(which requires 2/3 states to ratify it IIRC) pushed through, any Federal laws rely on either interpreting those amendments(which relies on the SC) or the Commerce clause, which relies on interstate commerce being able to be directly linked to whatever it is. Or funding withholding, I suppose, but doesn't have the same force of law that the either two approaches have.

Honestly it IS time for another amendment, but good luck getting it without getting enough of the right people into the right positions in state government.
 

Coglestop

Grand Emperor of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
Local/state has always been more important than the national elections. It's the state legislators that set district maps, after all. My current state legislature is pretty solidly blue and hopefully, with Hogan unable to run for another term, so will the governorship.(granted, Hogan isn't nearly as bad as many other Republican governors, he's still a Republican)
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
Even if by some magic you got an abortion amendment; if you still have the same six rightwing ideologues on the Supreme Court they can block it.
 

CoffeeHorse

*sip*
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack any basis in the Constitution.”


Tomas' opinion is more terrifying than any news outlet seems to have picked up on yet.
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
It’s so dumb.

If you asked *any* of the Founders if they thought the state should be able to decide who you slept with they would (rightly!) be aghast.

Yet here we are in 2022 bracing for when Thomas declares relationships like his illegal.
 

CoffeeHorse

*sip*
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
Wow. Roberts' opinion is basically "This is way too far and I wouldn't have done it so please think of me as a moderate but I still concur with the judgment."

Brave.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
Least powerful Chief Justice in history. Powerless to stop the 5 zeolots. Pathetic.
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:

There are three things that need to be said of the SCROTUS ruling on Roe v Wade:

1: If you disliked Trump but refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, you helped make this happen. If you think it's wrong for me to say this, then you still helped make it happen, but you're also a weasel who won't take responsibility for your own actions.

2: Women will die because of this.

3: None of the "pro-life" people will care about #2.
 

Rust

Slightly Off
Citizen
Worst part about this is now every woman that has a stillbirth or a miscarriage will be treated as a potential murderer. Hell, better than even chance there's no serious investigation and they just are automatically assumed to have "helped along" the situation.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
Even if by some magic you got an abortion amendment; if you still have the same six rightwing ideologues on the Supreme Court they can block it.
That's the entire point of an amendment - the Supreme Court doesn't get a say in it. They can interpret the amendment but they can't actually touch it in any way - that falls specifically to Congress and the states. And it wouldn't just be for abortion specifically, it'd be for privacy, so you could fold in the gay sex, gay marriage, and similar issues that all were established under the same precedents as Roe was. In the digital age, a privacy amendment is SORELY needed regardless.
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
They can interpret “this amendment allows legal abortion” into whatever they want because…no one can stop them!

Look at the second amendment. It’s written explicitly to allow weapons for militia service yet they’ve decided it means you can buy as many assault rifles as you want and conceal/carry them everywhere.
 
Top Bottom