SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Xyonai]

Yeah I rushed. The Squad basically and others. I will wait and see and by no means should Congress people get special treatment but let's see if they are targetd.

Folks arrested for protesting aren't usually held for very long, even when they're not politicians. Can expect them to be out at the end of the week and also expect every conservative pundit in the country to whine and scream about how they should be stripped of office for having an arrest record or some stupid bullshit.

[Paranoid Android]

Folks arrested for protesting aren't usually held for very long, even when they're not politicians. Can expect them to be out at the end of the week and also expect every conservative pundit in the country to whine and scream about how they should be stripped of office for having an arrest record or some stupid bullshit.

Well I will be fair and say can be savvy on Omar and others for going through this.

[Xyonai]

Well I will be fair and say can be savvy on Omar and others for going through this.

Honestly, getting arrested at a civil rights protest is a pretty big W. Shows conviction.

- - - Updated - - -

Also because, again, tangentially related: Spurred by the recent Dobbs decision, Democrats have put forward the 'Respect for Marriage' act to repeal DOMA (which wasn't ever officially removed from the books) and codify same sex marriages into federal law. Pretty much to get it set in stone before the Supreme Court has an excuse to strike down gay marriage as we've discussed here already.

[Miffinat0r]

Honestly, getting arrested at a civil rights protest is a pretty big W. Shows conviction.

- - - Updated - - -

Also because, again, tangentially related: Spurred by the recent Dobbs decision, Democrats have put forward the 'Respect for Marriage' act to repeal DOMA (which wasn't ever officially removed from the books) and codify same sex marriages into federal law. Pretty much to get it set in stone before the Supreme Court has an excuse to strike down gay marriage as we've discussed here already.

Even if the Dems had a comfortable 65 seat majority in the Senate and passed this bill the SCOTUS would rule against it saying the Federal Government can't legislate on this it's not in the purview of the Federal Government vs the States.

[Shadowferal]

Even if the Dems had a comfortable 65 seat majority in the Senate and passed this bill the SCOTUS would rule against it saying the Federal Government can't legislate on this it's not in the purview of the Federal Government vs the States.

Nope. SCOTUS would be crossing the line of separation of powers. The legislative body would be doing exactly what it's constitutionally supposed to do.

[Miffinat0r]

Nope. SCOTUS would be crossing the line of separation of powers. The legislative body would be doing exactly what it's constitutionally supposed to do.

You think this SCOTUS cares? They gutted the VRA and if Roberts had a bigger liberal court he would be opposed to the ACA.

[enigma77]

Nope. SCOTUS would be crossing the line of separation of powers. The legislative body would be doing exactly what it's constitutionally supposed to do.

No they wouldn't, not necessarily. Congress' power is limited by the constitution. They can't overrule states all the time. Acts of congress have been voided by the supreme court before.

[Edge-]

Even if the Dems had a comfortable 65 seat majority in the Senate and passed this bill the SCOTUS would rule against it saying the Federal Government can't legislate on this it's not in the purview of the Federal Government vs the States.

The SCOTUS actually banks on this, actually.

Previously there was a long record of the SCOTUS issuing rulings and saying, "This law isn't clear so we're ruling against it, but if we're interpreting it incorrectly the Legislature is welcome to clarify." because the Legislature did. There wasn't so much partisanship that they couldn't pass legislation, and there was functionally a dialogue between the SCOTUS and Legislature in this regard. It was very much, "how this is supposed to operate".

The SCOTUS is continuing this, but doing so in bad faith because they, like everyone else, fully know that the Legislature can't do anything thanks to hyperpartisanship, driven mostly by Republicans who continue to rebuff and reject any Democrats efforts to compromise or work together. So they issue rulings fulling knowing that their ruling will stand as the final law, regardless of if it's a clear misinterpretation of the law or not.

This is easily the most activist SCOTUS we've ever seen in our lifetimes, and quite possibly in US history.

[Miffinat0r]

The SCOTUS actually banks on this, actually.

Previously there was a long record of the SCOTUS issuing rulings and saying, "This law isn't clear so we're ruling against it, but if we're interpreting it incorrectly the Legislature is welcome to clarify." because the Legislature did. There wasn't so much partisanship that they couldn't pass legislation, and there was functionally a dialogue between the SCOTUS and Legislature in this regard. It was very much, "how this is supposed to operate".

The SCOTUS is continuing this, but doing so in bad faith because they, like everyone else, fully know that the Legislature can't do anything thanks to hyperpartisanship, driven mostly by Republicans who continue to rebuff and reject any Democrats efforts to compromise or work together. So they issue rulings fulling knowing that their ruling will stand as the final law, regardless of if it's a clear misinterpretation of the law or not.

This is easily the most activist SCOTUS we've ever seen in our lifetimes, and quite possibly in US history.

It's up there with the Warren court. But the difference was the Warren court was liberalizing freedom to minorities and women. This court is like

Nah states can do this just fine.

I guess they forgot the States passed Jim Crowe too.

[Edge-]

It's up there with the Warren court. But the difference was the Warren court was liberalizing freedom to minorities and women. This court is like

Nah states can do this just fine.

I guess they forgot the States passed Jim Crowe too.

They didn't, hence why Roberts lead the charge in gutting the Voting Rights Act. Because it should absolutely be a state's right to disenfranchise voters based on race as long as they have any kind of transparently bullshit excuses. Per this current conservative court, the federal government largely has zero role to play in ensuring equal access to voting and protecting peoples Constitutional right to vote.

Because all Constitutional rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Miffinat0r]

They didn't, hence why Roberts lead the charge in gutting the Voting Rights Act. Because it should absolutely be a state's right to disenfranchise voters based on race as long as they have any kind of transparently bullshit excuses. Per this current conservative court, the federal government largely has zero role to play in ensuring equal access to voting and protecting peoples Constitutional right to vote.

Because all Constitutional rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.

According to this court I'm fairly sure the federal government shouldn't exist.

Man these people would've hated Lincoln.

[Endus]

No they wouldn't, not necessarily. Congress' power is limited by the constitution. They can't overrule states all the time. Acts of congress have been voided by the supreme court before.

When it comes to human or civil rights, they're always under Constitutional protection at the federal level. It's not possible to (legitimately) argue that the States should have that authority.

Why do so many Americans forget the 9th Amendment exists?

[D Luniz]

Hey, check it out. North Carolina trying to legalize the murder of pregnant women if you claim they were planning to have an abortion.

https://twitter.com/punishedmother/s...33349347803139

no, cause then you kill the fetus, that amendment DOES sound like it would allow anything up to that in the aim of "protecting a life" so the woman chained up for the remaining 9 months? "it was to protect the baby!! IM A GOD DAMN HERO!!!"

[Edge-]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...tion-minnesota

Women? HAVING CAREERS?

“It’s not over. Our culture loudly but also stealthily, promotes abortion. Telling women they should look a certain way, have careers, all these things.”

Just a reminder that according to Republicans, the only role of a woman is to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

[Santti]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...tion-minnesota

Women? HAVING CAREERS?



Just a reminder that according to Republicans, the only role of a woman is to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

I can't wait to see what their solution is going to be for having only one of the parents working. And no, "bootstraps" is not a solution.

[jonnysensible]

Just a reminder that according to Republicans, the only role of a woman or a 10 year old is to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

fixed for u m8

[Endus]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...tion-minnesota

Women? HAVING CAREERS?



Just a reminder that according to Republicans, the only role of a woman is to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

Worse; I would argue that society openly and proudly promotes abortion to women, as part of their freedom and self-ownership, and to help ensure that no one be forced to suffer an unwanted pregnancy that could otherwise throw off their life plan.

There is no "stealthily" about it. It isn't something to be ashamed of. It's just something some particular extremists want to murder women over.

More and more, I'm coming to the understanding that the pro-life movement is essentially akin to the honor killing movement among some fringe Muslim groups. Same basic concept; a woman's actions have violated their narrow and extremist interpretation of their religion, and thus that woman must die.

I don't see any functional difference. Religious extremism that victimizes and kills innocent women, either way.

[Kralljin]

Women? HAVING CAREERS?

It's more about using the fact that in some very left leaning circles, a women taking on the "traditional" role as housemaker is frowned upon, thus it's being construed as if Women are being pressured into having careers rather than having the choice between the traditional role and a career.

But that's the Republican playbook, take a standpoint that only a few people actually hold and frame it as cultural issue to rally their own base.

[bladeXcrasher]

When it comes to human or civil rights, they're always under Constitutional protection at the federal level. It's not possible to (legitimately) argue that the States should have that authority.

Why do so many Americans forget the 9th Amendment exists?

Because it isn't read on the way to their favorite Amendment...

[Edge-]

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...onies-14062222

Reminder about where the violence is coming from.

Prosecutors have a message for AZ Patriots leader Jennifer Harrison: You’re not getting off so easy this time.


Harrison, an alt-right firebrand, didn't face charges after she sprayed a young girl with bear mace at a Black Lives Matter protest in Phoenix in June 2020. Tempe police say she pulled the stunt again on July 3.

Harrison, 45, was arrested on suspicion of dousing pro-choice protesters in bear mace near a Fourth of July celebration at Tempe Beach Park and initially faced a pair of misdemeanor charges. But on Monday, Tempe city prosecutors dropped those charges to make way for possible felony charges.

After a two-week investigation, it was determined that “Harrison’s actions in spraying protestors with bear spray merit the consideration of felony charges,” according to a joint statement from the Tempe Prosecutors Office and the Tempe Police Department.

City attorneys dropped the misdemeanor charges and referred upgraded felony charges to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for consideration on Thursday.


“The submittal is currently under review by our office,” county attorney spokesperson Jennifer Liewer told Phoenix New Times on Tuesday.

Liewer could not share which specific charges the office is considering.

According to police, people were demonstrating at Mill Avenue and University Drive on July 3 "when a subject deployed what appeared to be pepper spray from a vehicle toward members in the crowd."


Several passersby caught the incident on video.


At the time, the department did not name a person of interest. But after a flurry of photos and videos of the attack surfaced on social media, Harrison admitted to her role in the attack and surrendered to Tempe police four days later on minor charges of assault and disorderly conduct.


She was quickly released.


In a tweet posted to her own since-deleted account, Harrison claimed that she sprayed bear mace from the passenger window because one protester “clearly did not like Jennifer and was saying profanities directed towards Jennifer.”


Harrison also claimed the protester reached into her car window, at which point “there was no telling what her intentions were,” and that another protester “approached the vehicle with arms raised in a striking motion lunging toward Jennifer through the open window.”


Eyewitness accounts and videos of the altercation fail to corroborate either claim.

Harrison's boyfriend, Michael Pavlock, who was driving the car, has not been charged in the incident, according to court records. Pavlock has accompanied Harrison during her vigilante antics on the southern border and around the Valley.


The dismissal of charges at the city level allows county attorneys to consider felony charges in the case. If the county attorney declines to proceed with upgraded charges, Tempe prosecutors will again review pursuing misdemeanor charges in the incident.


Tempe has one year from the date of the incident to bring misdemeanor charges against the AZ Patriots figurehead, who harassed migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border and rallied against government restrictions in response to the global pandemic.


AZ Patriots is an “anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim extremist group,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Harrison made a name for the organization with her guerrilla anti-protests, antagonizing demonstrators with opposing views and posting videos of the altercations on Facebook.


In 2019, with Harrison at the helm, the group snuck into the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters in Phoenix by pretending they were dropping off donations for asylum seekers. Instead, they left two bags of garbage apparently picked up along the border.

As a result, Facebook unpublished the group's online page.


That prompted Harrison to join the Arizona Republican Party as a precinct committee member, later feigning being a journalist in an attempt to infiltrate the Maricopa County Elections Department during ballot tabulation for the 2020 general election.


A month after the election, she was arrested on suspicion of identity fraud after using 45,000 of her former father-in-law's reward points to book a hotel room in Northern California to attend a music festival.


She took a deal to avoid felony charges.


Time will tell if she’s lucky enough to dodge felony charges a second time.

Note: This is not the first time she's assaulted peaceful protesters with bear mace, and lied about it. I hope she gets the felony charge and conviction this time. And all her other lies and shady shit she's been doing.

Why does it seem like every group with "Patriot" in its name is filled with actual human trash who appear to have no redeeming qualities?