That is indeed specifically the REPUBLICAN plan. As David Frum said, if Republicans can’t win through democracy, they’ll abandon democracy.
Only so much, insofar as it’s also a considered legal opinion, at the highest level, but it has no legal weight at the end.
The SCOTUS determines what the law is, the dissent(s) are opinions as to what the law should be.
You keep explaining how the Supreme Court works as if people here didn’t know that. We all know what the law of the land is as of this week.
The Supreme Court majority does not, however, speak Ex Cathedra, channelling the Founding Fathers with some sort of supernatural infallibility. They are, at best, the arbiter of what is legal right now. Congress could deal with it, but won’t; legal challenges brought before this group of nine with a better argument, or a slightly different group of nine in the future, could change that.
More to the point, their decision on the law of the land, while final, may not be free from flaws. They are the majority of nine humans, not of nine gods, and they can make mistakes. We’re allowed to look for, look at, and discuss those mistakes. I don’t understand why you think that we should not.
Because he agrees with this decision.
I never said that.
“Merits and flaws” of ruling X is fine. What you think the law and/or Constitution should be are great.
Declaring one’s opinions (or someone else’s opinions) as if they were facts, is not. IMO.
I am surprised this is not getting more attention.
For years we heard that the Supreme Court was acting like a nine person un-elected legislature making up laws as they see fit.
Then we get to this conservative court and they’ve run amok. In one case originalism is important, in the next…eh (as shown in the EPA case).
As I understand it there was no question before the court. The issue at hand was moot. They were on about a regulation that no longer exists, never took effect and was never enforced. I am still unsure how this ever made it before the court.
Then the court, which is all about originalism in the Roe case and how bad it was to make things up that are not in the constitution, uses this “Major Questions Doctrine” which truly is ginned up out of nowhere to gut government agency rule-making.
And congress actually gave the EPA the ability to make those rules. The Supreme Court just decided nope with no real legal basis to be seen for miles. The court just decided it didn’t like it and is undermining a cornerstone of US government (agencies doing the work congress can’t).
And what is the court saving us from? It would be one thing if this were the only recourse but it isn’t. Congress has complete power to fiddle with the agencies in numerous ways. New laws or adjusting funding or changing leadership leap to mind. There is no shortage of ability for congress to solve this problem…if even it was a problem. But the court had to step in?
And here we go! Ted Cruz says SCOTUS decided Obergfell incorrectly. It will be just a matter of time before a case challenging this ruling gets to the Thomas court.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists have been teaching that democracy is bad for a long time.
Here is a lesson from the largest religious homeschooling organization,ATI, which is non-denominational and has been widely adopted by fundamentalists of of all denominations except Catholicism.
The summary is in the center column on Page 3. Do yourself a favor and skip right to it. Be glad you weren’t homeschooled by these people. For more detail on why democracy is bad, skip ahead to page 55.
Holy shit:
Because a pure democracy makes the will of the majority the sovereign rule of the land, it violates the requirements of a Godly nation. A pure democracy fulfills the description of the broad way
which leads many to destruction.
Then there’s a picture of Mussolini!
No wonder so many MAGATs spout “tyranny!” when presented with any policy they don’t care for.
If I hear “we’re a democracy, not a republic” coupled with some innocuous argument about “tyranny of the majority” one more time I think I’m gonna throw up.
This may be of interest:
A federal judge has ruled that, thanks to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Dobbs, Arkansas can criminalize masturbation, adultery, and other “deviant sexual practices”.
The judge writes:
" No Supreme Court decisions protect bigamy, incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, or obscenity (although the First Amendment limits how states may define and allow for proof of obscenity [citations omitted]). Such practices can only newly receive constitutional protection if they can be validated using the proper interpretive method of focusing on text, history, and tradition. Because they manifestly cannot, [SB 4592] is valid with respect to these practices."
And lest you think it’s not possible, Ark. Gov. Huckabee has said masturbation needs to be illegal, comparing it to abortion. “Just as I’m grateful to my mother for not aborting me and therefore we ban abortion, I’m equally grateful to my daddy for not spilling his seed and preborting me.”
I will point out that, as of now, Lawrence (same sex sodomy) and Obergefell (same sex marriage) are still good law, so Arkansas can’t criminalize those.
But if this Supreme Court continues, it may not be very long for those to fall too.
She either assumes that her father never touched himself in an inappropriate way, or that her father is responsible for “preborting” quite a number of her siblings.
It is exactly by criminalizing them that they get them in front of SCOTUS to be overturned.
But, I think that if this goes ahead, I feel most sorry for the evidence techs who will be inundated by an avalanche of dirty socks.
…April Fool’s?
It doesn’t look like it is meant to be a joke
I’m no lawyer but doesn’t the Griswold v Connecticut case establish the right to privacy with regard to intimate sexual matters? The case was all about contraception but I think the ruling would cover masturbation and perhaps the others.
Have y’all tried following the links?
I see now.
I did follow several of the links to legislation that seemed related to the matter. If I had clicked on the links that went to youtube rather than to the Arkansas legislature or to Cornell University, I suppose I would have noted the tone that was being used.
When someone who doesn’t do normally do satire does satire, they should be aware of Poe’s law.
Huh, that’s a funny comic.
It would be funnier if it were in some way related.
As the comic is talking about deliberate misinformation from disreputable sites, and we are talking about satire from a respected law professor, those aren’t really the same thing.
Unless you are saying that Poe’s law has no validity at all.
I’ll admit to being taken in by the satire, but if you were trying to make a point with your cited comic, you were way off the mark.