Surprises coming for voters for the Leopards-Eating-Faces Party

[Gatopescado]

With Matt Gaetz and Puff Daddy in charge?

[kaylasdad99]

@Smapti

@Johnny_L.A

No, it means that the Supreme Court has ruled contrary to the Constitution.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory.

In Dobbs, SCOTUS decided that Roe v. Wade had been decided improperly. Are we to infer that Roe existed in some kind of Eigenstadt for some fifty years, until the Dobbs decision collapsed the wave function? Schroedinger’s cat should live so long, even if it never gets put in the box.

[Saint_Cad]

@kaylasdad99

In Dobbs, SCOTUS decided that Roe v. Wade had been decided improperly. Are we to infer that Roe existed in some kind of Eigenstadt for some fifty years, until the Dobbs decision collapsed the wave function?

This is more to the point that SCOTUS believes that in the name of consistency stare decisis shall not be violated … except when they want to. We could have the exact same argument about Plessy v Ferguson until Brown v Board of Education.

Specifically to your point, in this thread posters are asking what to do when SCOTUS makes a “wrong” or “unconstitutional” decision. One solution is for SCOTUS itself to change the decision saying it was ruled on incorrectly. Suppose we go to war with China. Would you be happy if Chinese-American citizen were placed in concentration camps and SCOTUS said “Our hands are tied due to Korematsu.”?

[Saint_Cad]

@Gyrate

I note that you’ve effectively ceded the point that the current Supreme Court could do pretty much whatever it wanted without any checks or balances to its rulings, no matter how extreme, and such rulings would become the law of the land immediately.

That has been true since Marbury v Madison so calling out THIS Supreme Court is disingenuous.
Dred Scott v Sanford
Executive Order 6102 & Perry v United States and the Gold Clause Cases
Kelo v New London
Wickard v Filburn
Citizens United v FEC
The Slaughterhouse Cases
Executive Order 9066 & Korematsu v United States

Do I need to go on showing this has always been an issue?

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@DesertDog

Splitter! It’s the LEPFP – Leopards Eating Peoples’ Faces Party!

I always thought it was the Face-eating leopard party.

[Horatius]

@DesertDog

Splitter! It’s the LEPFP – Leopards Eating Peoples’ Faces Party

I thought we were the Leopards Eating Popular Faces Party.

[Sherrerd]

I did accurately quote the originator of the concept in the OP:

@Sherrerd

In 2015 the immortal observation

“I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.

…was made by Adrian Bott (@cavalorn on then-Twitter—would this type of remark remain uncensored on X?)

But when it came time to type a title I excised a word in the interests of making the title more readable.

The “face-eating leopard party” is right out, I think, given that it implies that its voters are actually leopards.

A quick search of “Trump voters surprised” led mainly to articles about voters who thought he’d lose. But there is this Reddit discussion of a paywalled Atlantic article:

… In the end, a majority of American voters chose Trump because they wanted what he was selling: a nonstop reality show of rage and resentment… Trump voters never cared about policies, and he rarely gave them any. (Choosing to be eaten by a shark rather than electrocuted might be a personal preference, but it’s not a policy.)

Last night, a gaggle of millionaires and billionaires grinned and applauded for Trump. They were part of an alliance with the very people another Trump term would hurt—the young, minorities, and working families among them. …

The discussion, from right after the election, won’t look alien to anyone here. After some back-and-forth over the topic of Trump voters “being sorry” when the economy tanks due to Trump’s nutty economic ideas, one poster says:

… 2017-2018, when Democrats had zero political power, they [Trump fans] were blaming Democrats for all kinds of shit that Republicans were literally doing.

The “Deep State” idea originated from this period; they needed a way to blame their fuckups on Democrats despite them holding all the levers of power, so magically Democrats are really still in control and thus can be blamed.

Their group identity is stronger than reality itself. They will never abandon their grievance politics to vie for their own interests.

Sounds pretty accurate so far.
my interjection within brackets in that second quote

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1gleb0m/trump_voters_got_what_they_wanted_those_who/

[Smapti]

@Gyrate

I note that you’ve effectively ceded the point that the current Supreme Court could do pretty much whatever it wanted without any checks or balances to its rulings, no matter how extreme, and such rulings would become the law of the land immediately.

@kaylasdad99

In Dobbs, SCOTUS decided that Roe v. Wade had been decided improperly. Are we to infer that Roe existed in some kind of Eigenstadt for some fifty years, until the Dobbs decision collapsed the wave function?

Marbury v. Madison isn’t exactly new, you know.

[Gyrate]

@Saint_Cad

That has been true since Marbury v Madison so calling out THIS Supreme Court is disingenuous.

Not if the point one is intending to prove is that we cannot rely on the current SCOTUS to be a check on the worst excesses of the Trump administration and other right-wing groups.

[Saint_Cad]

@Gyrate

Not if the point one is intending to prove is that we cannot rely on the current SCOTUS to be a check on the worst excesses of the Trump administration and other right-wing groups.

In my list there were three decisions that let FDR do whatever he wanted. And this new point is not evident in your post. Your point appeared to be
OMG THIS SCOTUS is operating under rules no other Supreme Court ever has. Mah pearls. I’m getting the vapours.

[Der_Trihs]

@Saint_Cad

Your point appeared to be
OMG THIS SCOTUS is operating under rules no other Supreme Court ever has.

There’s at least one previous court that operated under Trumpian rules. It helped lead to the Civil War.

[Saint_Cad]

@Der_Trihs

There’s at least one previous court that operated under Trumpian rules. It helped lead to the Civil War.

You saw I used that as one of my examples, right?

[Der_Trihs]

@Saint_Cad

You saw I used that as one of my examples, right?

Actually no, that was upthread.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Zoobi

I doubt straight white guys will face much, if any, hardships. The next decade or so will be amazing for them.

The non-rich ones most certainly will be facing hardships just like nearly everyone else.

[DesertDog]

While saying to themselves, “At least I am not [other].”

[BippityBoppityBoo]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

non-rich ones most certainly will be facing hardships just like nearly everyone else.

Not exactly like nearly everyone else.

[Der_Trihs]

There’s plenty of straight white guys who fit the targeting parameters of the Right, even if many of them are too stupid to see it coming. Non-Christians, anyone who’s ever voted Democrat, anyone who isn’t “white” by the standards of the racists, anyone on any form of public assistance, anyone in a “liberal state”, anyone who refuses to repudiate someone who is on the list of targets, etc.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Fascists will keep going down their list of targets seeking an ever-more stringent standard of racial/religious/political purity, and sooner or later most people of whatever skin color will find themselves on it one way or another. Including many of their supporters.

[Machine_Elf]

@Der_Trihs

There’s plenty of straight white guys who fit the targeting parameters of the Right, even if many of them are too stupid to see it coming. Non-Christians, anyone who’s ever voted Democrat, anyone who isn’t “white” by the standards of the racists, anyone on any form of public assistance, anyone in a “liberal state”, anyone who refuses to repudiate someone who is on the list of targets, etc.

Add in any guy who is married to a non-white woman.

[Der_Trihs]

@Machine_Elf

Add in any guy who is married to a non-white woman.

Yeah, they’ll bring back miscegenation laws if they can. Gotta keep the Master Race pure after all.

[Gyrate]

@Saint_Cad

In my list there were three decisions that let FDR do whatever he wanted. And this new point is not evident in your post. Your point appeared to be
OMG THIS SCOTUS is operating under rules no other Supreme Court ever has. Mah pearls. I’m getting the vapours.

That is not remotely my point. Unclutch those pearls.