4 ms·

"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might

"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe. Other than the fact that he got elected.

mywittyname 4y ago
His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.
- timr 4y ago
  > His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
  - 6stringmerc 4y ago
    Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
    - sieabahlpark 4y ago
      Your assumption that everyone is so stupid that they automatically believe everything is actually quite racist and authoritarian. You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.
    - timr 4y ago
      > Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. ...'twas ever thus. But seriously: nothing in my comment was specific to any particular politician. I am a free speech absolutist because I don't trust you to judge what I'm allowed to hear. For all values of "you". The correct reaction to "omg, this person whom I hate just won the election!" is not to censor the person in some desperate, misguided attempt to prevent people from liking him. It's to offer a better alternative in the marketplace of ideas. Asserting that you can't do this because "society is broken", or similar excuses, is just a cop-out.
    - bavell 4y ago
      Yeah, it's THOSE people that are stupid - not US! Right?! looks around nervously
    - jimbob21 4y ago
      > The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. So instead of letting stupid people vote, you would prefer that their vote is manipulated and therefore cast for them? You would prefer a fascist state?
- chmod600 4y ago
  OK, that's more indirect than I understood the point to be: you're saying that he used unacceptable speech to get elected, and that resulted in the imminent overturn of Roe. I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable limiting any kind of speech on the grounds that it may get the wrong person elected. If someone says something hateful and gets elected, that's just one of the flaws of democracy. But I haven't heard of any better system. The U.S. has checks and balances to slow down the worst of it. I mean, given how much Trump wanted to do vs how much he actually did, it's pretty clear the system worked. I'm pro-choice, but I also know that many people aren't, and the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed. Even perfect systems don't produce perfect outcomes all the time. If you have an idea for improvements to the system, I'm all ears, but limiting speech of political candidates is very likely a regression. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be turned against you.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed. Anything that's not clear in the Constitution is fair game, then?
    - chmod600 4y ago
      Well, judges have limited power, too, and it comes largely from the text in front of them (not entirely, but largely). SCOTUS is not the only mechanism for preserving rights. We also have state constitutions, elected representatives, etc., and it seems like those are also (mostly) doing their part to protect bodily autonomy. With a strong enough mandate, there could also be federal laws. But we are in a country where not everyone agrees and the text is ambiguous, so I don't really know what you expect to happen that would be in line with democratic principles.
- xdennis 4y ago
  He didn't pack the court. He got 3 judges in 4 years because he was lucky. * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination * One because an existing Republican judge died * And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.
  - temp8964 4y ago
    > * One because an existing Republican judge died retired
    - neverartful 4y ago
      I believe they were referring to Scalia who died.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    You've missed out Kennedy (strategically retired) and counted Scalia twice (died during Obama's term.) Kennedy wasn't anything to do with "luck" and I'd dispute that Scalia was either - he could probably have died a year earlier and McConnell would still have blocked the seat.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    > * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination Actually, this rule, the so-called "Biden Rule" was created by Joe Biden in 1992 in explaining his refusal to "confirm any election-year Bush nominees leaned explicitly on the different standards applicable to divided government" [1] > Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) [2] > “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.” [2] [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/amp/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no-nominations-to-the-supreme-court-in-an-election-year/2016/02/22/ea8cde5a-d9b1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Didn't his opposition run on the same platform and still continues to run? Making his supporters the worst possible people while openly supporting domestic terrorist ideologies and organisations. And being racist and pro discrimination.
pohl 4y ago
That's kind of how it works, though, innit: wannabe autocrat demagogue gets a bullhorn, uses it to leverage power via populist rhetoric, then shoves activist justices onto the bench — who, surprise, do their activist thing... That's the "very little connection" you're missing.
- cityofdelusion 4y ago
  "Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
  - sg47 4y ago
    Would rogue be more acceptable?
    - chmod600 4y ago
      A majority can't really be "rogue" either.
  - pohl 4y ago
    Whatever one thinks of the legal grounding of the Roe decision, those criticisms pale in comparison to throwing stare decisis out the window and trying to make an enumerated-rights argument without even addressing the 9th amendment[1] in the room. Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited. [1]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
    - chmod600 4y ago
      SCOTUS hasn't used the ninth amendment much, and it wasn't the basis for Roe (though I think RBG would have preferred that it was). I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states. I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.

mywittyname 4y ago

His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.

timr 4y ago
> His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    Your assumption that everyone is so stupid that they automatically believe everything is actually quite racist and authoritarian. You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.
  - timr 4y ago
    > Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. ...'twas ever thus. But seriously: nothing in my comment was specific to any particular politician. I am a free speech absolutist because I don't trust you to judge what I'm allowed to hear. For all values of "you". The correct reaction to "omg, this person whom I hate just won the election!" is not to censor the person in some desperate, misguided attempt to prevent people from liking him. It's to offer a better alternative in the marketplace of ideas. Asserting that you can't do this because "society is broken", or similar excuses, is just a cop-out.
  - bavell 4y ago
    Yeah, it's THOSE people that are stupid - not US! Right?! looks around nervously
  - jimbob21 4y ago
    > The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. So instead of letting stupid people vote, you would prefer that their vote is manipulated and therefore cast for them? You would prefer a fascist state?
chmod600 4y ago
OK, that's more indirect than I understood the point to be: you're saying that he used unacceptable speech to get elected, and that resulted in the imminent overturn of Roe. I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable limiting any kind of speech on the grounds that it may get the wrong person elected. If someone says something hateful and gets elected, that's just one of the flaws of democracy. But I haven't heard of any better system. The U.S. has checks and balances to slow down the worst of it. I mean, given how much Trump wanted to do vs how much he actually did, it's pretty clear the system worked. I'm pro-choice, but I also know that many people aren't, and the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed. Even perfect systems don't produce perfect outcomes all the time. If you have an idea for improvements to the system, I'm all ears, but limiting speech of political candidates is very likely a regression. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be turned against you.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed. Anything that's not clear in the Constitution is fair game, then?
  - chmod600 4y ago
    Well, judges have limited power, too, and it comes largely from the text in front of them (not entirely, but largely). SCOTUS is not the only mechanism for preserving rights. We also have state constitutions, elected representatives, etc., and it seems like those are also (mostly) doing their part to protect bodily autonomy. With a strong enough mandate, there could also be federal laws. But we are in a country where not everyone agrees and the text is ambiguous, so I don't really know what you expect to happen that would be in line with democratic principles.
xdennis 4y ago
He didn't pack the court. He got 3 judges in 4 years because he was lucky. * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination * One because an existing Republican judge died * And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.
- temp8964 4y ago
  > * One because an existing Republican judge died retired
  - neverartful 4y ago
    I believe they were referring to Scalia who died.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  You've missed out Kennedy (strategically retired) and counted Scalia twice (died during Obama's term.) Kennedy wasn't anything to do with "luck" and I'd dispute that Scalia was either - he could probably have died a year earlier and McConnell would still have blocked the seat.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination Actually, this rule, the so-called "Biden Rule" was created by Joe Biden in 1992 in explaining his refusal to "confirm any election-year Bush nominees leaned explicitly on the different standards applicable to divided government" [1] > Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) [2] > “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.” [2] [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/amp/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no-nominations-to-the-supreme-court-in-an-election-year/2016/02/22/ea8cde5a-d9b1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no...
Ekaros 4y ago
Didn't his opposition run on the same platform and still continues to run? Making his supporters the worst possible people while openly supporting domestic terrorist ideologies and organisations. And being racist and pro discrimination.

pohl 4y ago

That's kind of how it works, though, innit: wannabe autocrat demagogue gets a bullhorn, uses it to leverage power via populist rhetoric, then shoves activist justices onto the bench — who, surprise, do their activist thing... That's the "very little connection" you're missing.

cityofdelusion 4y ago
"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.
- sg47 4y ago
  Would rogue be more acceptable?
  - chmod600 4y ago
    A majority can't really be "rogue" either.
- pohl 4y ago
  Whatever one thinks of the legal grounding of the Roe decision, those criticisms pale in comparison to throwing stare decisis out the window and trying to make an enumerated-rights argument without even addressing the 9th amendment[1] in the room. Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited. [1]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
  - chmod600 4y ago
    SCOTUS hasn't used the ninth amendment much, and it wasn't the basis for Roe (though I think RBG would have preferred that it was). I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states. I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.