3 ms·

Oh, I can think of about four reasons SCOTUS would: Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Which leaves it up to Alito, and that's too close (for me, at least

Oh, I can think of about four reasons SCOTUS would: Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Which leaves it up to Alito, and that's too close (for me, at least) to call.

naikrovek 4y ago
yeah, extremely conservative people don't see their talking points as being hateful, and instead see them as factual. (source: many, many former extreme conservative acquaintances and friends, also a lot of time in my youth spent in the armed services listening to the most vocally angry people.) they feel their opinions are being unfairly targeted because "snowflakes and princesses" (implying weak-minded people) view those talking points as hate speech, and hate speech is not covered by the first amendment of the US constitution. they view the "hate speech" label as a loophole around free speech guarantees, and they feel it is wielded solely by liberals, and solely to silence their perfectly valid conservative views. so, instead of understanding that reality might differ from their collective view of reality, two things which they view as being exactly equal, they instead attack what they view as the problem: unfair censorship. this ruling seems very likely to be based on this perspective, and if so, is intended to make the first amendment unenforceable in situations where moderation does not outright favor conservative viewpoints. conservatives of this extremity can't compete for mindshare based on their viewpoint, so they compete by changing the rules. this ruling goes against both the letter of the first amendment and the spirit of the first amendment.
Gormo 4y ago
What's your reasoning for suspecting these particular justices would be inclined to abandon application of the commerce clause in a case of actual interstate commerce?
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  What makes you think they wouldn't?
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    What makes you think they would?
    - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
      What makes you think they wouldn't?
      - BizarroLand 4y ago
        What makes you think they would?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Because these are the same people who described unwanted children as the "stock of babies". Nothing required them to say anything of the sort when overthrowing Roe v. Wade. All they had to do was say "Come on, it was poorly justified back then and should be thrown out for just that reason." but they spent pages and pages trying to talk about there being a moral reason for denying women the right to abort something growing inside them. But they could not keep their personal biases out of the ruling. There's no reason to think any supreme court justice has ever kept personal bias out of their rulings. Each justice has a history of cases and outcomes they've overseen in their time, and usually they are chosen precisely because of that. For instance, are you aware many of the justices appointed by Trump were the justices who oversaw the stopping of counting votes in florida for the 2000 election? It doesn't matter whether their personal opinion comes from a bible verse or a supposed interpretation of the constitution. They are still obvious, previously known biases towards or away from certain opinions, and these justices are appointed by politicized bodies. These justices are part of politics no matter what they may personally believe.

Oh, I can think of about four reasons SCOTUS would: Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Which leaves it up to Alito, and that's too close (for me, at least) to call.

naikrovek 4y ago

yeah, extremely conservative people don't see their talking points as being hateful, and instead see them as factual. (source: many, many former extreme conservative acquaintances and friends, also a lot of time in my youth spent in the armed services listening to the most vocally angry people.) they feel their opinions are being unfairly targeted because "snowflakes and princesses" (implying weak-minded people) view those talking points as hate speech, and hate speech is not covered by the first amendment of the US constitution. they view the "hate speech" label as a loophole around free speech guarantees, and they feel it is wielded solely by liberals, and solely to silence their perfectly valid conservative views. so, instead of understanding that reality might differ from their collective view of reality, two things which they view as being exactly equal, they instead attack what they view as the problem: unfair censorship. this ruling seems very likely to be based on this perspective, and if so, is intended to make the first amendment unenforceable in situations where moderation does not outright favor conservative viewpoints. conservatives of this extremity can't compete for mindshare based on their viewpoint, so they compete by changing the rules. this ruling goes against both the letter of the first amendment and the spirit of the first amendment.

Gormo 4y ago

What's your reasoning for suspecting these particular justices would be inclined to abandon application of the commerce clause in a case of actual interstate commerce?

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
What makes you think they wouldn't?
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  What makes you think they would?
  - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
    What makes you think they wouldn't?
    - BizarroLand 4y ago
      What makes you think they would?
mrguyorama 4y ago
Because these are the same people who described unwanted children as the "stock of babies". Nothing required them to say anything of the sort when overthrowing Roe v. Wade. All they had to do was say "Come on, it was poorly justified back then and should be thrown out for just that reason." but they spent pages and pages trying to talk about there being a moral reason for denying women the right to abort something growing inside them. But they could not keep their personal biases out of the ruling. There's no reason to think any supreme court justice has ever kept personal bias out of their rulings. Each justice has a history of cases and outcomes they've overseen in their time, and usually they are chosen precisely because of that. For instance, are you aware many of the justices appointed by Trump were the justices who oversaw the stopping of counting votes in florida for the 2000 election? It doesn't matter whether their personal opinion comes from a bible verse or a supposed interpretation of the constitution. They are still obvious, previously known biases towards or away from certain opinions, and these justices are appointed by politicized bodies. These justices are part of politics no matter what they may personally believe.