7 ms·
The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is
by qalmakka 4y ago
The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me.
I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them.
In a previous post I wrote that conservatives everywhere use moral issues to make people enraged in order to get vote, and in exchange to that they use their power to help the rich get richer. This is exactly what I was talking about. Those Conservative judges were appointed by a President elected by people that rallied behind him hoping to see Roe overturned, and in exchange for that they also gave them a free pass to alter the US political system in a way that is favourable to the Republican party, i.e. the party of big industry and capital.
This is also another small hint that "countries" are a stupid concept - we must stop to pretend that a single country is an island, everything has consequences that irradiate and reflect on the rest of the world, and it's stupid to think everyone can be a ruler of its own tiny spot of our planet.
Countries are like homes, but they aren't cottages in the middle of nowhere, they are flats - if you set your own house on fire, everyone will suffer, everyone will lose something, if not everything.
"$countryname first!" and Nationalism in all its forms is basically just a more general form of Fascism.
- hnrodey 4y agoThe Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.
- jrochkind1 4y agoIs it though?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoThey are the final say on legal interpretation. Outcomes are for legislators to worry about.
- 31835843 4y agoThe Constitution doesn’t say any of that.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoThe Constitution doesn't say that the Supreme Court is the final say? Constitution, Article 3 > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
- 31835843 4y agoIf your question was intended to claim that the Article you quoted gives The Supreme Court ‘the final say on legal interpretation,’ I’m interested to know which words in that Article you believe gives that say.
- jrochkind1 4y agoIt seems to me like they are considering outcomes. I'm not sure how we know for sure if they are or not, we don't know what's in their heads. But this court appears to many like they've got some outcomes in mind and are fitting the law to them. And, I mean, Trump literally said that he could guarantee he was going to appoint justices that would overturn Roe, and then they did, as he guaranteed. That's an outcome, right?
- hnrodey 4y agoThis type of non-sense is what ruins the comments section.
- jrochkind1 4y agoRight back atcha!
- jeffbee 4y agoVery much a "The law in its majesty ..." take on the matter.
- golemotron 4y agoIndeed. People are upset with the Supreme Court recently, but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for. You want effective standards, do the work and pass a law.
- aaomidi 4y agoFor example scotus coming out in the next few months and going against the ruling that allowed gay marriage would be empowering for democracy? The scotus is still operating in this environment. I don’t see how “fuck it throwing you to the wolves” has any immediate or future benefits?
- golemotron 4y agoA number of people on both sides of the issue have noted that the country was on an arc toward more liberal abortion laws before Roe. When SCOTUS steps in and decides issues without a solid Constitutional basis it interferes with the consensus process of democracy and produces division. The same is likely true with the other privacy rulings. Have some faith in people. Inventing rights and privileges autocratically is definitely problematic in a democracy. It's better to do the work of persuasion. We all have to live together. Note as well, the number of countries who have arrived at gay marriage through legislation rather than judicial fiat. It's a more respectful way to go.
- fzeroracer 4y ago'More respectful'? What was respectful about states denying people the ability to see their partner in the hospital because they have the crime of being gay? Or being denied the ability to participate in basic rights because they're gay? Or is it just because it doesn't inconvenience you? Like these are all things that are very fresh in the memory of anyone gay that's lived in southern or red states. It's not a democracy if you have a bunch of people you treat as second class citizens.
- abigail95 4y ago
- VoidWhisperer 4y agoHow would you apply this to the Roe v Wade decision overturn? I'm not saying it is infeasible to apply it to that but I am curious to see the argument that that was explicitly focused on laws and not outcomes (especially given some of the language used by some of the justices to refer to abortion)
- hnrodey 4y agoI'm a software developer, not a legal scholar. Anything I said that could be considered intelligent regarding analysis of SCOTUS opinions would be nothing more than regurgitation I've heard from another source in the media. As such, I will decline to offer anything beyond what I've already said.
- xpe 4y agoIt depends what you mean. Of course the mechanisms under their control are mostly about legal interpretation and Constitutionality. If you read a lot of Supreme Court opinions you'll see that the justices do care about outcomes to a large degree.
- kar5pt 4y agoJudges use outcomes to interpret the law all the time. There's nothing, on it's face, invalid about that approach. You may personally disagree with it, but then you'd have to justify why the rest of us should believe in a legal philosophy that's clearly going to degrade our quality of life by destroying the environment.
- User23 4y agoI’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time. If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or imaginary threats you believe you face, then the correct way to deal with that is through the elected branches. They are the ones meant to make policy.
- Clent 4y agoNo it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government. Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.
- NeonVice 4y agoCongress created the EPA, but the court ruled that some regulations were outside of their charter. Congress can fix it by updating the EPA charter.
- vorpalhex 4y agoI interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision. ...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.
- dionian 4y agocool well if you have the votes then pass a law, and btw, BRICS will take over economically and keep pumping gases into the atmosphere the whole time
- ohCh6zos 4y agoIf nationalism is a more general form of fascism, are all, or almost all governments prior to the modern era fascist?
- swader999 4y agoThere's something to be said for rules and policy being adapted to a locale. What's right for people in one region might not work for some in another. You'll get a tyranny of the majority in much of your life the broader you go away from local governance. I agree there's benefit to have federal and international rules and policy but it's more nuanced than just saying sentiments for keeping power at a national level are fascist.
- kar5pt 4y agoNationalism is very specific to the modern era. It didn't really exist before the French Revolution. So no. Unless that was a typo and you mean to write "after the modern era"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- scifibestfi 4y agoThis sounds like GPT-3 trained on partisan talking points. If it's not, isn't it weird that you didn't notice that Democrats keep promising to codify Roe but never do? They had 40 years!! If they solved the problem, they wouldn't have that to campaign on and raise money with. Keep people enraged to get their vote. You're spot on about that, but it's how both parties operate. Never solve the problem so it'll be there next cycle.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoRoe v Wade becomes codified, abortion becomes legal in all 50 states, immediately there is a lawsuit, they appeal to the supreme court, supreme court chooses to hear the case, supreme court repeals the codified Roe v. Wade. IANAL but how does codifying Roe v Wade change this?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brodouevencode 4y agoBy codified I think most people refer to it being enshrined into the Constitution.
- openasocket 4y agoThe decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoAhhh gotcha. Subtle but important difference. I think that I agree then.
- deelowe 4y agoYep. Wedge issues. I'm glad the SC is trying to force congress to do its job. If only someone would do something about executive orders, we may make some real progress.