5 ms·

My boss does this every day. Instead of thanks for getting it done, it's why wasn't this done last year? Just an exhausting way to live life.

by ukyrgf 4y ago

thrown_22 4y ago
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  No, the reason why Roe vs Wade is gone is because of a focused, well-funded mobilization campaign in legal interpretation, legal scholarship, and funding of judge careers in order to turn the judicial system into a tool for subverting popular progressive sentiment.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    Interesting, because the way I see it, almost the exact same thing can be said of the original roe v wade decision- the result of a focused campaign for promoting progressive sentiment.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      No, there doesn't exist anything comparable to the infrastructure of the conservative judicial system. Wealthy progressive individuals hiding behind multiple corporations were not writing affidavits to roe v wade pretending to be multiple people. That strategy didn't exist until much later. Similarly, the decades-long funding of legal scholarship to prevent progressive legislation has no progressive comparison of equal maturity. There is no comparison to the size and influence of the Federalist Society in the funding of the careers of politically-motivated law students into politically-biased judges.
      - throwawayacc2 4y ago
        The progressive equivalent is the long march through the institutions. There absolutely was an organised “progressive” drive to increase their ideological base. And yes. The same long march is now happening from the other side. Progress is not always in the direction you like. * Long march through the institutions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_insti...
        PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        Long march through the institutions is a thing made up by a German student activist and has no known organizational heft beyond this. The article itself cannot name a single organization or achievement under this strategy. The Federalist Society is well-documented, in was founded in and organizes within the country we're talking about, hosts multiple conventions with close ties to conservative Supreme Court members, who have known to attend and give speeches advocating for extreme political interpretation, and who has been repeatedly reported to be the de facto gatekeeper for opportunities to judicial and legal positions under Republican government.
    - saxonww 4y ago
      Is this true? With the recent decision, we can see where it goes back to e.g. the creation of the Federalist Society in 1982, how nearly every conservative Supreme Court nominee since Scalia has been a member (Roberts is disputed but the other 5 current justices are, as were Scalia and Bork), and how some very clever and/or very dirty procedural maneuvering resulted in the conservative majority on the Supreme Court today. Did that happen with the Burger court that decided Roe? A quick check suggests that of the 9 justices on the Burger court, 4 were nominated by Nixon, 2 by Eisenhower, and 1 each by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. I really have no idea, I'm sure there were plenty of politics involved with all of those as well but I tend to think justices of this era were nominated more on merit than ideology. What focused campaign are you talking about?
      - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        see comment by throwawayacc2 - This is essentially what I am referring to. I'll admit it is much more nebulous than what you are referring to, but the Roe v Wade decision came from a philosophical school that fundamentally undermines the purpose of the supreme court in the first place, which is to interpret the constitution. Roe v Wade was an outlandish interpretation that wrote content into the constitution that was not there to begin with. -e.g. the decision was ideologically driven and justified, not driven by the actual text of the constitution.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        Roe v. Wade was based on something other than the Constitution. We can tell this because the Constitution simply doesn't talk about abortion and the right to privacy used as a justification is suspiciously focused on only abortions to the exclusion of most other things. Eg, apparently it didn't extend to communication, other medical procedures more broadly (eg, topically, vaccination status), financial transactions, web browsing habits, etc. And the Supreme Court of today felt confident overturning it on the basis that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. There also wasn't broad-based community support either, otherwise the court wouldn't have needed to step in to override the legislature. So there must have been something happening ideologically that allowed and convinced these judges to make the decision. Whether we call that thing a 'pressure campaign' or not is political, but there was something going on.
  - bhawks 4y ago
    I don't think you can exonerate the democratic establishment who ran campaigns and funding drives on the back of protecting Roe while also doing literally nothing legislatively for nearly half a century (including periods where they controlled both legislative and executive branches). Nothing the conservatives done was done in secret. The democratic establishment's inaction cannot be excused.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    an activist tool court would have made a 3-part legislative like framework for banning abortion nationwide. it didn't do that, it returned the question to the legislatures. I can agree that is disruptive, and dangerous for actual individuals, because the legislature never reached consensus. I can agree that several of the justices lied in their confirmation hearings for the goal of applying logic to an abortion case. I can also agree that its a job for the legislatures. I’m aware of the ultimate goal of the people that approached it this way - find the most compliant way to get their way - I think that way was unguarded because the democrats are barely even competing. But it is disingenuous to focus on the idea that its an odd ruling when it isn't. Its near the average of time that cases get overturned, not an improbable reality, and the reasoning wasn't a stretch of the imagination at all if you actually read it. I don't even see how that observation needs to look like a partisan perspective. So many legal journals have pointed out how odd and shaky Roe and Casey were, for Supreme Court rulings, for decades. People just didn't want to have that conversation and now its been hoisted on them after generations.

My boss does this every day. Instead of thanks for getting it done, it's why wasn't this done last year? Just an exhausting way to live life.

by ukyrgf 4y ago

My boss does this every day. Instead of thanks for getting it done, it's why wasn't this done last year? Just an exhausting way to live life.

thrown_22 4y ago

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
No, the reason why Roe vs Wade is gone is because of a focused, well-funded mobilization campaign in legal interpretation, legal scholarship, and funding of judge careers in order to turn the judicial system into a tool for subverting popular progressive sentiment.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  Interesting, because the way I see it, almost the exact same thing can be said of the original roe v wade decision- the result of a focused campaign for promoting progressive sentiment.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    No, there doesn't exist anything comparable to the infrastructure of the conservative judicial system. Wealthy progressive individuals hiding behind multiple corporations were not writing affidavits to roe v wade pretending to be multiple people. That strategy didn't exist until much later. Similarly, the decades-long funding of legal scholarship to prevent progressive legislation has no progressive comparison of equal maturity. There is no comparison to the size and influence of the Federalist Society in the funding of the careers of politically-motivated law students into politically-biased judges.
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      The progressive equivalent is the long march through the institutions. There absolutely was an organised “progressive” drive to increase their ideological base. And yes. The same long march is now happening from the other side. Progress is not always in the direction you like. * Long march through the institutions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_insti...
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        Long march through the institutions is a thing made up by a German student activist and has no known organizational heft beyond this. The article itself cannot name a single organization or achievement under this strategy. The Federalist Society is well-documented, in was founded in and organizes within the country we're talking about, hosts multiple conventions with close ties to conservative Supreme Court members, who have known to attend and give speeches advocating for extreme political interpretation, and who has been repeatedly reported to be the de facto gatekeeper for opportunities to judicial and legal positions under Republican government.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    Is this true? With the recent decision, we can see where it goes back to e.g. the creation of the Federalist Society in 1982, how nearly every conservative Supreme Court nominee since Scalia has been a member (Roberts is disputed but the other 5 current justices are, as were Scalia and Bork), and how some very clever and/or very dirty procedural maneuvering resulted in the conservative majority on the Supreme Court today. Did that happen with the Burger court that decided Roe? A quick check suggests that of the 9 justices on the Burger court, 4 were nominated by Nixon, 2 by Eisenhower, and 1 each by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. I really have no idea, I'm sure there were plenty of politics involved with all of those as well but I tend to think justices of this era were nominated more on merit than ideology. What focused campaign are you talking about?
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      see comment by throwawayacc2 - This is essentially what I am referring to. I'll admit it is much more nebulous than what you are referring to, but the Roe v Wade decision came from a philosophical school that fundamentally undermines the purpose of the supreme court in the first place, which is to interpret the constitution. Roe v Wade was an outlandish interpretation that wrote content into the constitution that was not there to begin with. -e.g. the decision was ideologically driven and justified, not driven by the actual text of the constitution.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Roe v. Wade was based on something other than the Constitution. We can tell this because the Constitution simply doesn't talk about abortion and the right to privacy used as a justification is suspiciously focused on only abortions to the exclusion of most other things. Eg, apparently it didn't extend to communication, other medical procedures more broadly (eg, topically, vaccination status), financial transactions, web browsing habits, etc. And the Supreme Court of today felt confident overturning it on the basis that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. There also wasn't broad-based community support either, otherwise the court wouldn't have needed to step in to override the legislature. So there must have been something happening ideologically that allowed and convinced these judges to make the decision. Whether we call that thing a 'pressure campaign' or not is political, but there was something going on.
- bhawks 4y ago
  I don't think you can exonerate the democratic establishment who ran campaigns and funding drives on the back of protecting Roe while also doing literally nothing legislatively for nearly half a century (including periods where they controlled both legislative and executive branches). Nothing the conservatives done was done in secret. The democratic establishment's inaction cannot be excused.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  an activist tool court would have made a 3-part legislative like framework for banning abortion nationwide. it didn't do that, it returned the question to the legislatures. I can agree that is disruptive, and dangerous for actual individuals, because the legislature never reached consensus. I can agree that several of the justices lied in their confirmation hearings for the goal of applying logic to an abortion case. I can also agree that its a job for the legislatures. I’m aware of the ultimate goal of the people that approached it this way - find the most compliant way to get their way - I think that way was unguarded because the democrats are barely even competing. But it is disingenuous to focus on the idea that its an odd ruling when it isn't. Its near the average of time that cases get overturned, not an improbable reality, and the reasoning wasn't a stretch of the imagination at all if you actually read it. I don't even see how that observation needs to look like a partisan perspective. So many legal journals have pointed out how odd and shaky Roe and Casey were, for Supreme Court rulings, for decades. People just didn't want to have that conversation and now its been hoisted on them after generations.