Isn't the main reason abortions can take place that the supreme court rendered a decision in Roe V. Wade? That might not be the same as making an actual law, but it surely establishes what is and isn't possible under the law. Why can't the supreme court reverse the decision effectively rendering various anti-abortion laws that were rendered null and void viable once more?
You see, it's not supposed to be. And the 6-3 "conservative" majority isn't a 6-3 Republican loyalty. "Conservative" in the judiciary is related to the "originalist" stance people in here are mocking, that 2/3s majority is people who do not intend to change constitutional law so long as the constitution remains unchanged.
Yeah, it isn't supposed to be, but what is and what should be are different things. And at present the supreme court has been stacked with people who not only has no place being there for moral reasons, but also by at least one person whose spot was withheld from a more deserving person through underhanded means.
No, it won't actually look like they're just mad that Donald is screwing with their soft corruption overseas.
Well, as long as you have a justification for never, ever fighting for the labor movement...
What.
Originalism in practice is just a thin pretense to decide whatever the hell you want.
Precedent shapes the law. The ad specifically condemned the Supreme Court's decision, indicating that Barrett felt they should have "interpreted" differently... and the stated reason she gave was based on personal moral outrage.
What plays well to you (and me, as it happens) is a far cry from what plays well with the American public. Repeated unsuccessful impeachments for the stated purpose of buying time would play exceptionally poorly.
You know, they could fight for the labour movement through avenues that actually exist-- legislative ones. Which requires electoral victory.
Just what I said. The actual circumstances or details of the bills didn't come up, which leads me to think it's not about that. It was the very act of compromise which was unacceptable, until they refused to compromise, at which point the act of refusal became an act of betrayal.Seanchaidh said:
This isn't a rational opinion. This is partisanship.
Pfah.
That's a lot of words to admit your claims here are wholly unjustified.
Huge difference between being told something along the lines of "We won't vote to confirm this candidate" or having an actual vote where the candidate isn't confirmed and Mitch refusing to do his goddamn job and hold a confirmation hearing just to seize a seat on the supreme court.
The seat opened while Obama was president. The seat was held open through the refusal to vote on a confirmation. The seat was not for Clinton or anyu republic president.
If you think that there isn't a reason that virtually all Constitutional originalists are politically conservative and the conservative political scene pushes originalists, god help you. The US right enthusiastically took up originalism as a reaction to a generation of "politically liberal" SCOTUS rulings that they didn't like. As these neophyte right-wing lawyers started their careers, they will have been inspired to check out originalism by their conservative social circles, and seen this theory of law taught and practiced that told them all those rulings they hated were wrong. Of course many of them will have grasped at it.
They had a chance in 2009 to follow through on a campaign promise for the labor movement- card check- and didn't do any fucking thing.
Donald Trump won the 2016 election while Mitch McConnell declined to have a vote on Merrick Garland for months. You're just saying this would be unpopular, and furthermore that it would be obvious when the reasoning is very flimsy indeed.
That's true. This is an argument to tank the election this time?
McConnell exercised a known function of his office which was utterly shitty and poorly justified, but used no extra time, allowed other Senatorial work to go ahead, and grabbed no headlines. The idea this would be viewed the same as endless failed impeachment proceedings for the stated purpose of wasting time in the run-up to an election is a bit silly.
The only difference is voting on confirmations is the job of the senate, and if someone refuses to bring it to a vote they aren't doing their job.
There are plenty of reasonable things to impeach members of the Trump administration for. For example: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/impeach-bill-barr.html
You just keep making this part up.
She’s only a cog in the theocratic wheel. Trump only being another small one. Neither of these two are controlling the cases that the Supreme Court sees.
Consider, for a moment, in a vacuum, the idea that employers are obligated to pay for contraception. Out of context, the connection is so tenuous, 20 years ago you would barely even be able to explain to someone why you thought that was a given. Even further than that, you think that if employers don't have to pay for contraception by federal law, then it's a disgusting theocracy. That is a million degrees of non sequitur. That is the sort of position you reach when you determine your viewpoint based on politics rather than the inverse. Like, before the ACA, no insurer in the US had to pay for contraceptives. Does that mean the partial mandate makes us more theocratic now? What's the reasoning here?
