I don't think a Supreme Court that issued a 6-3 expansion of Title VII into gender identity and sexual orientation (even if ACB flips, it's still 5-4) is going to come back and undo the ruling that legalized gay marriage.
In essence, the article argues that we can rely on the honour and commitment to objectivity of Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh.
Because the one time an impeachment was attempted, the public already responded with resounding criticism. Multiply that into endless failed impeachments, without a hope of success, dominating the news-cycle until election day, allowing them to look like petulant obstructionists? It's freaking obvious. The Republicans would rejoice at such a colossal misfire.
Yes, but we were talking about methods of stopping her, weren't we? This doesn't actually address my criticism. Why should workers respect an approach that sacrifices their pay and workplace safety, uses them as pawns in a political fight they didn't sign up for?
If the criticisms were consistent I could perhaps take them seriously, as well. I still recall condemnation of the Democrats for compromising on some bill or another in order to get it passed, and then condemnation of the Dems (much from the same people) for refusing to compromise on the stimulus vote.
Almost certainly. But they might not tell us the results.
Yeah, this would mean a whole lot more if the media wasn’t right about Trump half the time. Complain all you want about their inaccuracies but they HAVE been accurate on most things. When you point out that Trump is authoritarian that abuses power which completely comes true, or question his ability to administrate then Covid happens showing his inability to lead or coordinate states, people are going to lose faith in the institution that supposed to protect them. They literally forced through ACB and then went on break... without dealing with the stimulus. The priorities are all wrong. People wouldn’t be complaining about ACB as much if you got the important stuff done first.
Well that's just not true. Basically none of the complaints about her are justified at all, and all of them were prepared to be fired off when they thought she was getting Kavanaugh's seat.
I mean, she had only been a judge for a year at that time would be my biggest issue.
The Supreme Court decision on Title 7 was based on clear language: if you won't hire a man because their attracted to men but you will hire a woman who's attracted to men, that's plain language discrimination based on sex.
That thought had occured, but it's not really surprising. Blatant hypocrisy is par for the course.
Yeah, this does not make me comfortable at all. Did we not learn anything from Theocracies? Just have a look at Iran etc. Why do you want to copy that
This is a very simplistic take. The Democrats chose to impeach Trump over an issue that made them look, frankly, worse than him.
Like I said before, by broadening the demands, contextualizing the Supreme Court appointment as simply one small part, but also the last straw, of Republican anti-worker policy. Essentially: general strike for the reasons you should general strike at any time. And tie the Supreme Court into it.
It's almost like the particular consequences are relevant or something.
I mean, what I see is pure delusion. You personally suggest she's copying Iranian theocracy. Like, come on, man.
True. Iran's full of lily-livered liberals when it comes to abortion - she wants to go further.
A woman is quoted as saying abortion is immoral in a legal essay on recusing yourself from issues conflicting with your conscience. The same woman who just accepted her appointment while saying it's her job as justice to put aside her personal beliefs. I don't know what facts you're referring to. It looks to me like a bunch of people who've let politics determine their view rather than the inverse.
I said that because I knew you would get all huffy about it and you did not disappoint. That is all, thank you.
I mean, if it ends the misinformation circle jerk here, I'm more than happy with the results.
If they fill the docket with impeachments, they'll have to come up with justifications for that as well. If their stated reason is to filibuster, that'll look even worse.
This would look any less party-political? The timing alone would make it transparent that the nomination was the deciding factor, resulting in everything I outlined above: immediate rejection by a majority of workers, abysmal optics.
If they were, they didn't come up in the complaints themselves.
...And also in adverts explicitly calling for Roe V. Wade to be reversed because it's "barbaric". So, she's already given her personal moral feelings on the matter specifically as a justification for changing the law.
Yes, as a justification for changing the law. Changing the law isn't the Supreme Court's job, their job is interpretation. Abortion will be bannable in the US if and when the legislature makes it explicitly so, that's why personhood amendments have been drafted, so as to make the constitutional stance clear. If that doesn't happen, the court's not going to divert from precedent very far.
