SCOTUS should not have taken a case that didn't have standing, but that's another stay. This jerk judge, you should know, was appointed because of contributions from his family who owns Publix. He is a great example of an inferior legal mind who sailed into a District judgeship on a major contribution to the least qualified potus we've ever had. They make a good pair. Blech. 🤮
I think ideology runs far deeper than law for these people. I went to U-M for undergrad and my Dad went to law school there on the GI bill. Great school. But no one can break through cultish religious beliefs or incompetence. I went to law school at NYU - but there were still students there who were adherents to the Federalist Society's way of thinking. Go figure.
Good question Bob! They have betrayed their oath, country & citizens. It was amazing to hear reports that Mike Johnson said yesterday that “all is on the line in September.” I agree BUT with a very different perspective on what constitutes “all on the line.”
I think Judge Cannon suffers from lapses of integrity. Integrity is something that you learn at home. Multiple college degrees can’t make up for that lack.
She is a well educated but flawed human being. If the stakes weren’t so high she might be worthy of pity. Going forward, everyone will know she dances with the devil, she will have no respect.
It's not what law schools are teaching - they teach law. They don't "discriminate" against the predispositions and mindsets of the law students whom they teach. Law schools teach the law, not advocacy of personal beliefs.
The message I take away from this is that some justices who sided with Justice Alito regarding Dobbs learned their lesson. But I wouldn't even begin to hope they learned the right lesson. I think they learned only a political lesson: don't issue a decision like Dobbs right before an election. Wait for a better time. So don't be lulled into a false sense of security by this SCOTUS decision. Think about what they're probably planning to do in the future, stay angry and go vote!
The future is only as far away as the “immunity” case. Let’s hope the political uproar over the incredible corruption of two justices has touched a nerve. BUT…!
“….if they're called upon to decide the presidential election.”
This is something I’ve pondered and what scares me the most.
What is going on behind the scenes regarding the delays this SCOTUS and lower courts have allowed, dare I say facilitated, in keeping three trials in which Trump has been indicted from taking place Before the November election?! The documents case was the simplest, straight ahead case and should have gone to trial long ago.
It seems they (right wing Christian extemists in the courts, in state legislatures, in Congress, in the Senate ) have something up their sleeve, some cockamamie scheme which will guarantee Trump wins regardless of the vote tallies. I have no illusion this sounds like just another “conspiracy theory” but with the delays something seems to be deeply amiss.
Yes vote! Support others to vote. Send Postcards etc. But what if Trump has been guaranteed a win by the legislatures in states with GOP majorities? What if there is some scheme in the courts in these states? What if these schemes will progress past any appeals and/ or lawsuits filed in federal courts to the SCOTUS? We all know something is deeply wrong, but what exactly is it……?
Don't think it did. You'd best believe there's more to the story. The fact that it took that long indicates somebody's up to something. Did you ever see the movie Cinderella Man? If so, do you remember the manager saying something like, "When they take this long to make a decision, they're going to decide to screw somebody."
Not unsurprising considering you were first dealing with Matthew Kacsmaryk from a single judge division of the Northern District of Texas and then, by all accounts, the most conservative Fifth Circuit, which granted a partial stay of Kacsmaryk's ruling but left standing intact. Finally, you had the SCOTUS stay of the entire Fifth Circuit ruling.
In the press to hold women in shame and punishment for unwanted pregnancies, where is the attention to how the pregnancies came about? Where is the shame and punishment for the men who coerced sex, or otherwise impregnated a non-consenting woman or girl? Whether in marriage or outside of it, at a drunken frat party or the back seat of a car, coerced sex occurs more frequently than people seem to realize, and there is little or no shame or punishment meted out to the men who are doing it. Add to that the lax enforcement of child support orders, where men who make babies take no responsibility for their care, and it becomes clear what this is about: subjugation of women.
Pregnancy is entirely the fault of a male. Women ovulate every month without a pregnancy resulting. Time there are stiff penalties (pun intended) for irresponsible sex. Like chemical castration. Or the real thing.
I totally agree with you Andrea. You and I are on the same soapbox. When men make the rules, they are never held accountable. Think Anita Hill and Kavenaugh's hearings.
Handmaids Tale revisited.... And some might have thought it was fiction. Instead, it's a story that holds truth going backwards as well as forwards, unfortunately. Women, and me who love them, must stand up and vote for women's rights--once again!
For years and years it was assumed that "only"women of low repute got abortions,the ones who went to the clinic,but the women who actually needed them in an emergency,or for specific reasons,were treated in hospital,by regular surgeons.
So how stupid do the politicians look now,when the spotlight has fallen on the sicker women,or the little(!!!)girls who are totally innocent victims,and the women who sadly discovered their much-wanted and carefully planned for babies wouldn't survive due to fatal anomalies.These were always the women,and young girls,who actually needed the abortions,but also the people who went to the clinics had good reasons as well.People shouldn't be so judgemental either way.
I have over the years read the horror stories of the self induced abortions,that killed thousands of young women,that left kids behind that grew up without a mom,and then the poor young women who went to the unqualified butchers who maimed and killed thousands more.There were once hospital wards for these poor girls,and the cops stood over these dying women demanding to know who the abortionists were so they could be arrested.Not to save the women,but to prevent the abortions,but a determined woman can always make a way to get one,even at risk of her life.
Making(and keeping) abortions legal saves lives,but these misogynistic asses want women to be"put in their place"even if it kills them.
Doctors should be deciding healthcare,not politicians and religious zealots,who have no idea what they're talking about.They talk to hear their heads rattle.
And women are People,not Objects.We don't need to be controlled by ignorant short sighted morons.Even the ones on the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, today people who aspire to political office and are honored with commencement speeches are happy to say that women are too "mouthy" and would be much happier back in the kitchen. While we notice all of this, the outcry isn't close to what it should be, in my opinion.
The point I keep trying to wrap my head around in the cases where the Mother's life is compromised . If the Mother dies... the fetus dies... What's the point of killing the Mother to save a non viable fetus? What's the point of making her suffer like that? Our world has gotten very mean and evil.
Joyce, framing is terribly important. For instance, the recent case in NYC was not a “hush money” case; it was an election interference case.
Similarly, we cannot frame these people as “four pro-life medical associations”, because we’ve seen clearly that “life” is not a major cause for concern among these groups. Instead, we should describe them as “anti-choice”, a much more accurate depiction of their ideology.
I refuse to use "pro-life" to describe this viewpoint.
It's backward religious ignorance. It's unscientific biased stupidity.
Call it the jeebus brigade and be done with it.. it isn't even real Christianity, which I'll remind again has no mention of abortion. And in fact denies fetal personhood itself as life only begins when "god" breathes it in.
"Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" a Republican frames that have been ingrained into our heads for years. It is best not to use them in any written or spoken form.
"Pro-life" came from the right's misdirected belief that to call themselves pro-life would never have a downside, because to be otherwise implied being pro-death.
HowI love educating Hippocratic Oafs, especially the typical right-wing nutjob ones.
“I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture….”
That’s correct, the Hippocratic Oath is polytheistic. P…P…P…Pagan, OMGs! (Oh My Gods). Well that’s awkward, for them.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen F Roberts)
Why are we such a backward looking nation? Can anyone tell me? For a nation that prides itself on be technologically advanced, we sure do 👀 look rotten. Something smells.
We're a baby nation that thinks it's King. Money is power and power corrupts. Add the algorithmic psych-farming of the desperate, aggrieved and blind-spotted to not-too-bright, here we are. Many other nations are older with much more learned history, yet we're too smug to look to them.
Even some of our founders like good ole Tommy Jefferson who owns a bunch and began sniffing one of them up all the while writing about all free men — not women and well Africans weren’t quite men were they? But today, we must use intelligence, moderation to win. Going left won’t work. History shows that when a society splits into extreme sides, usually the autocratic side wins because people want security and safety. Why do you thing the facists of Israel won power? (Said Tongue in cheek.)
It has something to do with our origin as a nation, with genocide, racism, and the sub-par status of women being acceptable conditions. Although the founders were noble, the citizens were not so much. Compare this with enlightened Europe at the time. While these traits were part of the history of most European countries, they were no longer acceptable while we were just getting started.
Europe was happy and relieved to be rid at least a faction or two of the religious fanatics. No doubt, remembering the Roanoke Colony's fate, the Brits and the rest of Europe's inhabitants probably hoped that the wilderness and the indigenous peoples would finish the fanatics off for good.
"Enlightened Europe" was where the idea of slavery - the transporting of human beings for profit from Africa to North America, South, & Central America was concocted. U seemed to ignore that very important detail as part of America's past despicable history. Europe was not enlightened, as u mentioned, AAs in the US had no rights from 1619 - 1964.
In 1803 Denmark and Norway abolished slavery. In 1834 Britain abolished slavery by an act of Parliament. France abolished slavery in 1848. In 1861 the US began a civil war over slavery. That war that has never ended. And slavery was world wide and not just in Europe. The transatlantic slave trade was started by European countries but slavery existed in Egypt as early as 1558 BC. with slaves from northern Africa. No country or civilization has clean hands with regard to slavery.
The Greeks had slaves. African nations enslaved others. It could be argued that today's corporations try to do the same, with non-compete agreements and no healthcare except through an employer. Anyone think that americas backward healthcare system is an accident?
Please note the phrase "at that time," TerriFY. I would not minimize the origins of some of America's dark beginnings nor its profiteering from human bondage. Nevertheless, the "enlightenment," a term for awakening in many ways, was underway in European history. Abolishing slavery was one factor. IMO, Black people are still oppressed everywhere, but the playing field is a little more level in most European countries.
KL Pierce -- When I saw Trump on TV in the Capitol today acting like he belonged there I had major anger to deal with. How dare he go to that gem of a building thinking he should even go through the doors that his Jan. 6th rioters fought their way through and went hunting for our leaders ? He sat in the White house and cheered the insurrectionists on, rebuffing his own children and all the leaders who were begging him to call-off the rioters. He should not be allowed in that Capitol or the White House ever again !
All I could think of was the Supreme Court, which has sheltered his immunity plea for months, had made a unanimous decision today to allow women to use a completely safe drug to guard their own bodies. I know why it was unanimous -- the Court is afraid if they held it or defeated it the voters would bury the "select-6" justices and all the MAGA believers in November. The time has come for people with common sense to take the reins. If the Court is holding that immunity decision for after the November election, those who are in favor of it do not deserve to be our justices. They are selfish, power-hungry and not even considering what it would do to our democracy.,
Oh, I think those 6 partisan Jurists know exactly what it would do to our democracy as we now know it. They seem to think that "they' would be well-insulated from the devastating effects and end up as "helpful friends" of the Dear Leader.
I'm repeating gossip, but more than one source says he uses prescription drugs frequently. Adderall is a stimulant, and we know how he is a night owl who sleeps only when he is in court.
My Civil Discourse t-shirt arrived today and I LOVE IT! I will be wearing it while canvassing for my local Democratic party this weekend. It's very nice quality too :)
Let's see what junk science and new speculative harm Missouri, Kansas and Idaho and any other potential plaintiffs come up with in trying to revive a second challenge. There is also the matter of proper venue. It is my understanding that the original plaintiff incorporated in Texas so as to be able to "shop" for Kacsmaryk. There's a new policy from the Judicial Conference of the United States that was issued in March to curb just this kind of judge shopping in federal courts. We'll have to see if the blatantly biased Kacsmaryk gets a second swing.
Update: Apparently he will. I had forgotten that the chief judge in his district has said it will ignore the new policy. Kacsmaryk has allowed the three states to become parties (intervene) in the original suit. The issue of standing remains however --- for the state plaintiffs, at least --- in light of recent SCOTUS decisions.
I would really hope that great minds can find a way to put Kacsmaryk's courthouse out of service, so that evil, inhumane rulings can no longer be guaranteed from that judicial district. Will it require a weather incident, an Act of God, or what? A smiting?
We need a darn searchlight held forever on this bunch of right wing Justices. We know what is ours to do in November so I suggest, we work like the devil to make true Justice happen. They knew from the start that this was a bum case. All they did today was broadcast to some other fruit loop group in that awful judicial district to make sure they do have standing and try again. The Supremes are almost screaming that their decision will be quite different that next time.
Since many of us expected a different result in this case, was this likely a compromise ruling, using standing as a way of dodging an issue even the 6 on the court know is contentious and not favored by most of us? I’m seriously asking here, not just opining.
I don't think so at all; the Red 6 were willing to follow what used to be established "standing" law (unlike the 5th Cir, or of course Kaczmarek) because dismissing on that basis puts off until *after the election year* their decision on the merits. Hasn't Kaczmarek already allowed 3 states to intervene (ID, MO, and ?) at his level, even though the Supremes didn't let them do so at their level? So the attempt to stamp out the pernicious embryo-and-early-fetus-killer drug will be right back with slightly more credible claimants to standing. I mean yes, dodging an issue they know is contentious and on which their decision will be unpopular, but only briefly, not as a compromise; they're dying for it to get back to them *after* their decision will not harm the election chances of their really weird political Messiah of Godliness by way of the Federalist Society and the pre-Vatican-II Mother Church.
What I think I was really asking is this: was this part of a horse trade of sorts with the others? I think many agree Kavenaugh wrote a roadmap here for how to get a ban on this drug through if they can come up with plaintiffs with standing in a future case. Leaving aside the question of who the hell has standing in anyone else’s medical decisions or why the courts get to question valid medical expertise by the FDA on drug safety, was the court here running a black market in opinions? What I am wondering is if this was a trade with the other 3 over some other case we have yet to see which is even worse.
I think the Red 6 are well pleased with the power of the stable they already have, and the Sane 3 have only a single pony to trade: making some decision or other unanimous where they would otherwise have dissented. I don't see it happening.
Wow. Is anything cut and dried. I’m sure if Comstock was alive today he’d be a maga minion. Was Alito shamed by what has just transpired with him and Martha, Martha, Martha? Another three gifts trips came out today about Thomas. I don’t think it will make a difference. Thomas will continue to stand by his associational standing if it’s brought up again.
SCOTUS should not have taken a case that didn't have standing, but that's another stay. This jerk judge, you should know, was appointed because of contributions from his family who owns Publix. He is a great example of an inferior legal mind who sailed into a District judgeship on a major contribution to the least qualified potus we've ever had. They make a good pair. Blech. 🤮
Add Aileen Cannon to that list, only without the cash contributions.
And yet she has degrees from Duke and University of Michigan!!! Once again, I ask, “What are they teaching in these law schools?”
I think ideology runs far deeper than law for these people. I went to U-M for undergrad and my Dad went to law school there on the GI bill. Great school. But no one can break through cultish religious beliefs or incompetence. I went to law school at NYU - but there were still students there who were adherents to the Federalist Society's way of thinking. Go figure.
Ya can’t teach honesty, you can only shame via peer pressure
When one “has no shame”, one can do whatever one wants
I don't share Joyce's optimism that sunlight is the best disinfectant, impeachment is.
This court needs to be expanded to 13 to dilute the conservative influence.
How do we use the 14th amendment to purge the traitors from congress?
Pragmatically, Impeachment carries no recourse without a Senate conviction. That’s not gonna happen
We’re stuck with the Gang of Six until the Court is enlarged
That requires control of Congress and the Presidency
In the meantime Joyce points out that sunshine persuaded Alito to think about his legitimacy
Vote
Actually the sunlight comment is conjecture, From the last paragraph:
"We don’t know for certain what came into play in this opinion,..."
Keeping our eyes on the court, letting them know we're watching, can't be a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily a cure for any of their behavior.
Good question Bob! They have betrayed their oath, country & citizens. It was amazing to hear reports that Mike Johnson said yesterday that “all is on the line in September.” I agree BUT with a very different perspective on what constitutes “all on the line.”
Let’s get out the vote big time.
Amen
They don't teach character. Just because you can answer the questions adequately doesn't mean you should hold a judge's position.
This is not the university's fault. UM school of Law is a fine institution, highly ranked.
Impugning the institution or its faculty for the deeds or viewpoints of some of their students is unwarranted.
Cannon did not learn sycophancy at university.
I think Judge Cannon suffers from lapses of integrity. Integrity is something that you learn at home. Multiple college degrees can’t make up for that lack.
She is a well educated but flawed human being. If the stakes weren’t so high she might be worthy of pity. Going forward, everyone will know she dances with the devil, she will have no respect.
I think she decided to be a hero. After all, he appointed her.
It's not what law schools are teaching - they teach law. They don't "discriminate" against the predispositions and mindsets of the law students whom they teach. Law schools teach the law, not advocacy of personal beliefs.
Shouldn’t they, at least, include a course on ethics and the law?
The court had to take the case to reverse the courts below.
Speaking of standing, I guess the 9-0 ruling broke Alito's 100% standing record.
Which one Alito?
The message I take away from this is that some justices who sided with Justice Alito regarding Dobbs learned their lesson. But I wouldn't even begin to hope they learned the right lesson. I think they learned only a political lesson: don't issue a decision like Dobbs right before an election. Wait for a better time. So don't be lulled into a false sense of security by this SCOTUS decision. Think about what they're probably planning to do in the future, stay angry and go vote!
I think you nailed it: “Let’s not give liberals another reason to get out and vote.”
The future is only as far away as the “immunity” case. Let’s hope the political uproar over the incredible corruption of two justices has touched a nerve. BUT…!
"Kavanaugh [noted that] some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes."
Let's hope he and other SCOTUS justices remember the "democratic processes" if they're called upon to decide the presidential election.
“….if they're called upon to decide the presidential election.”
This is something I’ve pondered and what scares me the most.
What is going on behind the scenes regarding the delays this SCOTUS and lower courts have allowed, dare I say facilitated, in keeping three trials in which Trump has been indicted from taking place Before the November election?! The documents case was the simplest, straight ahead case and should have gone to trial long ago.
It seems they (right wing Christian extemists in the courts, in state legislatures, in Congress, in the Senate ) have something up their sleeve, some cockamamie scheme which will guarantee Trump wins regardless of the vote tallies. I have no illusion this sounds like just another “conspiracy theory” but with the delays something seems to be deeply amiss.
Yes vote! Support others to vote. Send Postcards etc. But what if Trump has been guaranteed a win by the legislatures in states with GOP majorities? What if there is some scheme in the courts in these states? What if these schemes will progress past any appeals and/ or lawsuits filed in federal courts to the SCOTUS? We all know something is deeply wrong, but what exactly is it……?
I've also often wondered these very same things. Everyone says, "Vote 'em all out of office."
But what if voting doesn't matter??
I was hoping that I was being paranoid.
For more on what this case and the SCOTUS decision revealed, see 'The Hypocrisy Revealed by Religious Supremacists in the Mifepristone Case"
https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/the-hypocrisy-revealed-by-religious?r=30ufvh
I can’t believe it took over a year to figure out that the plaintiffs did not have standing
Don't think it did. You'd best believe there's more to the story. The fact that it took that long indicates somebody's up to something. Did you ever see the movie Cinderella Man? If so, do you remember the manager saying something like, "When they take this long to make a decision, they're going to decide to screw somebody."
Not unsurprising considering you were first dealing with Matthew Kacsmaryk from a single judge division of the Northern District of Texas and then, by all accounts, the most conservative Fifth Circuit, which granted a partial stay of Kacsmaryk's ruling but left standing intact. Finally, you had the SCOTUS stay of the entire Fifth Circuit ruling.
In the press to hold women in shame and punishment for unwanted pregnancies, where is the attention to how the pregnancies came about? Where is the shame and punishment for the men who coerced sex, or otherwise impregnated a non-consenting woman or girl? Whether in marriage or outside of it, at a drunken frat party or the back seat of a car, coerced sex occurs more frequently than people seem to realize, and there is little or no shame or punishment meted out to the men who are doing it. Add to that the lax enforcement of child support orders, where men who make babies take no responsibility for their care, and it becomes clear what this is about: subjugation of women.
Can you say Viagra??? How about banning that? If you follow the logic, it’s akin to any other, “enhanced” method of conception.
I agree with you so much -- these dudes act like women just get pregnant all on their own. It's a form of slut-shaming - and women are not sluts!
Pregnancy is entirely the fault of a male. Women ovulate every month without a pregnancy resulting. Time there are stiff penalties (pun intended) for irresponsible sex. Like chemical castration. Or the real thing.
I totally agree with you Andrea. You and I are on the same soapbox. When men make the rules, they are never held accountable. Think Anita Hill and Kavenaugh's hearings.
Remember Anita Hill and the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing in 1991?
I wonder how different the Supreme Court would be if her testimony had been given credence.
As much as I respect Joe Biden, I recall feeling disappointed with the way she was treated by the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Joe.
Times had not changed by 2019 with Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation and Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony.
Handmaids Tale revisited.... And some might have thought it was fiction. Instead, it's a story that holds truth going backwards as well as forwards, unfortunately. Women, and me who love them, must stand up and vote for women's rights--once again!
For years and years it was assumed that "only"women of low repute got abortions,the ones who went to the clinic,but the women who actually needed them in an emergency,or for specific reasons,were treated in hospital,by regular surgeons.
So how stupid do the politicians look now,when the spotlight has fallen on the sicker women,or the little(!!!)girls who are totally innocent victims,and the women who sadly discovered their much-wanted and carefully planned for babies wouldn't survive due to fatal anomalies.These were always the women,and young girls,who actually needed the abortions,but also the people who went to the clinics had good reasons as well.People shouldn't be so judgemental either way.
I have over the years read the horror stories of the self induced abortions,that killed thousands of young women,that left kids behind that grew up without a mom,and then the poor young women who went to the unqualified butchers who maimed and killed thousands more.There were once hospital wards for these poor girls,and the cops stood over these dying women demanding to know who the abortionists were so they could be arrested.Not to save the women,but to prevent the abortions,but a determined woman can always make a way to get one,even at risk of her life.
Making(and keeping) abortions legal saves lives,but these misogynistic asses want women to be"put in their place"even if it kills them.
Doctors should be deciding healthcare,not politicians and religious zealots,who have no idea what they're talking about.They talk to hear their heads rattle.
And women are People,not Objects.We don't need to be controlled by ignorant short sighted morons.Even the ones on the Supreme Court.
ESPECIALLY those ones on the Supreme Court!
My thought exactly!
Unfortunately, today people who aspire to political office and are honored with commencement speeches are happy to say that women are too "mouthy" and would be much happier back in the kitchen. While we notice all of this, the outcry isn't close to what it should be, in my opinion.
The point I keep trying to wrap my head around in the cases where the Mother's life is compromised . If the Mother dies... the fetus dies... What's the point of killing the Mother to save a non viable fetus? What's the point of making her suffer like that? Our world has gotten very mean and evil.
Yeah I feel that too,they are now willing-with straight faces,no less!!-to allow even someone with a tubal ectopic pregnancy to be allowed to die.
These people have lost their way.
Joyce, framing is terribly important. For instance, the recent case in NYC was not a “hush money” case; it was an election interference case.
Similarly, we cannot frame these people as “four pro-life medical associations”, because we’ve seen clearly that “life” is not a major cause for concern among these groups. Instead, we should describe them as “anti-choice”, a much more accurate depiction of their ideology.
and anti-women. and not board certified Ob/gyns for the most part
I refuse to use "pro-life" to describe this viewpoint.
It's backward religious ignorance. It's unscientific biased stupidity.
Call it the jeebus brigade and be done with it.. it isn't even real Christianity, which I'll remind again has no mention of abortion. And in fact denies fetal personhood itself as life only begins when "god" breathes it in.
"Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" a Republican frames that have been ingrained into our heads for years. It is best not to use them in any written or spoken form.
"Pro-life" came from the right's misdirected belief that to call themselves pro-life would never have a downside, because to be otherwise implied being pro-death.
Karl Rove aka turd blossom
HowI love educating Hippocratic Oafs, especially the typical right-wing nutjob ones.
“I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture….”
That’s correct, the Hippocratic Oath is polytheistic. P…P…P…Pagan, OMGs! (Oh My Gods). Well that’s awkward, for them.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen F Roberts)
Q.E.D.
Love "Hippocratic Oafs."
We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
That's brilliant, thanks.
“Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.”
— Desmond Tutu
Why are we such a backward looking nation? Can anyone tell me? For a nation that prides itself on be technologically advanced, we sure do 👀 look rotten. Something smells.
We got lazy and bad actors weren’t.
This is the lesson.
We're a baby nation that thinks it's King. Money is power and power corrupts. Add the algorithmic psych-farming of the desperate, aggrieved and blind-spotted to not-too-bright, here we are. Many other nations are older with much more learned history, yet we're too smug to look to them.
Even some of our founders like good ole Tommy Jefferson who owns a bunch and began sniffing one of them up all the while writing about all free men — not women and well Africans weren’t quite men were they? But today, we must use intelligence, moderation to win. Going left won’t work. History shows that when a society splits into extreme sides, usually the autocratic side wins because people want security and safety. Why do you thing the facists of Israel won power? (Said Tongue in cheek.)
It has something to do with our origin as a nation, with genocide, racism, and the sub-par status of women being acceptable conditions. Although the founders were noble, the citizens were not so much. Compare this with enlightened Europe at the time. While these traits were part of the history of most European countries, they were no longer acceptable while we were just getting started.
Europe didn't send us their best...
Europe was happy and relieved to be rid at least a faction or two of the religious fanatics. No doubt, remembering the Roanoke Colony's fate, the Brits and the rest of Europe's inhabitants probably hoped that the wilderness and the indigenous peoples would finish the fanatics off for good.
"Enlightened Europe" was where the idea of slavery - the transporting of human beings for profit from Africa to North America, South, & Central America was concocted. U seemed to ignore that very important detail as part of America's past despicable history. Europe was not enlightened, as u mentioned, AAs in the US had no rights from 1619 - 1964.
In 1803 Denmark and Norway abolished slavery. In 1834 Britain abolished slavery by an act of Parliament. France abolished slavery in 1848. In 1861 the US began a civil war over slavery. That war that has never ended. And slavery was world wide and not just in Europe. The transatlantic slave trade was started by European countries but slavery existed in Egypt as early as 1558 BC. with slaves from northern Africa. No country or civilization has clean hands with regard to slavery.
The Greeks had slaves. African nations enslaved others. It could be argued that today's corporations try to do the same, with non-compete agreements and no healthcare except through an employer. Anyone think that americas backward healthcare system is an accident?
Please note the phrase "at that time," TerriFY. I would not minimize the origins of some of America's dark beginnings nor its profiteering from human bondage. Nevertheless, the "enlightenment," a term for awakening in many ways, was underway in European history. Abolishing slavery was one factor. IMO, Black people are still oppressed everywhere, but the playing field is a little more level in most European countries.
The heat is finally on SCOTUS for now. We all need to stay on it.
KL Pierce -- When I saw Trump on TV in the Capitol today acting like he belonged there I had major anger to deal with. How dare he go to that gem of a building thinking he should even go through the doors that his Jan. 6th rioters fought their way through and went hunting for our leaders ? He sat in the White house and cheered the insurrectionists on, rebuffing his own children and all the leaders who were begging him to call-off the rioters. He should not be allowed in that Capitol or the White House ever again !
All I could think of was the Supreme Court, which has sheltered his immunity plea for months, had made a unanimous decision today to allow women to use a completely safe drug to guard their own bodies. I know why it was unanimous -- the Court is afraid if they held it or defeated it the voters would bury the "select-6" justices and all the MAGA believers in November. The time has come for people with common sense to take the reins. If the Court is holding that immunity decision for after the November election, those who are in favor of it do not deserve to be our justices. They are selfish, power-hungry and not even considering what it would do to our democracy.,
\
Oh, I think those 6 partisan Jurists know exactly what it would do to our democracy as we now know it. They seem to think that "they' would be well-insulated from the devastating effects and end up as "helpful friends" of the Dear Leader.
I was disgusted and angry too.
If it helps,I don't think he went into the Capitol. I think they met at a bar.
A big bourbon would do Donnie good.
Someone would have to pour it into him, given that he doesn't drink alcohol.
He just uses Adderall.
I had to look up Adderall. It can have bad side effects on the heart. Sounds like a prescription he gets from Dr. Ronny Jackson…
I'm repeating gossip, but more than one source says he uses prescription drugs frequently. Adderall is a stimulant, and we know how he is a night owl who sleeps only when he is in court.
My Civil Discourse t-shirt arrived today and I LOVE IT! I will be wearing it while canvassing for my local Democratic party this weekend. It's very nice quality too :)
Let's see what junk science and new speculative harm Missouri, Kansas and Idaho and any other potential plaintiffs come up with in trying to revive a second challenge. There is also the matter of proper venue. It is my understanding that the original plaintiff incorporated in Texas so as to be able to "shop" for Kacsmaryk. There's a new policy from the Judicial Conference of the United States that was issued in March to curb just this kind of judge shopping in federal courts. We'll have to see if the blatantly biased Kacsmaryk gets a second swing.
Update: Apparently he will. I had forgotten that the chief judge in his district has said it will ignore the new policy. Kacsmaryk has allowed the three states to become parties (intervene) in the original suit. The issue of standing remains however --- for the state plaintiffs, at least --- in light of recent SCOTUS decisions.
I would really hope that great minds can find a way to put Kacsmaryk's courthouse out of service, so that evil, inhumane rulings can no longer be guaranteed from that judicial district. Will it require a weather incident, an Act of God, or what? A smiting?
A big power outage, at least semipermanent, could work. And we know that part of Texas knows how to do that.
I think Texas will be more useful than Kansas with that.
More sunshine please!!!!!!!
We need a darn searchlight held forever on this bunch of right wing Justices. We know what is ours to do in November so I suggest, we work like the devil to make true Justice happen. They knew from the start that this was a bum case. All they did today was broadcast to some other fruit loop group in that awful judicial district to make sure they do have standing and try again. The Supremes are almost screaming that their decision will be quite different that next time.
Thank Joyce for this understanding of the decision today. The focus and the concurrent media scrutiny is essential as you so clearly point out.
Since many of us expected a different result in this case, was this likely a compromise ruling, using standing as a way of dodging an issue even the 6 on the court know is contentious and not favored by most of us? I’m seriously asking here, not just opining.
I don't think so at all; the Red 6 were willing to follow what used to be established "standing" law (unlike the 5th Cir, or of course Kaczmarek) because dismissing on that basis puts off until *after the election year* their decision on the merits. Hasn't Kaczmarek already allowed 3 states to intervene (ID, MO, and ?) at his level, even though the Supremes didn't let them do so at their level? So the attempt to stamp out the pernicious embryo-and-early-fetus-killer drug will be right back with slightly more credible claimants to standing. I mean yes, dodging an issue they know is contentious and on which their decision will be unpopular, but only briefly, not as a compromise; they're dying for it to get back to them *after* their decision will not harm the election chances of their really weird political Messiah of Godliness by way of the Federalist Society and the pre-Vatican-II Mother Church.
What I think I was really asking is this: was this part of a horse trade of sorts with the others? I think many agree Kavenaugh wrote a roadmap here for how to get a ban on this drug through if they can come up with plaintiffs with standing in a future case. Leaving aside the question of who the hell has standing in anyone else’s medical decisions or why the courts get to question valid medical expertise by the FDA on drug safety, was the court here running a black market in opinions? What I am wondering is if this was a trade with the other 3 over some other case we have yet to see which is even worse.
I think the Red 6 are well pleased with the power of the stable they already have, and the Sane 3 have only a single pony to trade: making some decision or other unanimous where they would otherwise have dissented. I don't see it happening.
Wow. Is anything cut and dried. I’m sure if Comstock was alive today he’d be a maga minion. Was Alito shamed by what has just transpired with him and Martha, Martha, Martha? Another three gifts trips came out today about Thomas. I don’t think it will make a difference. Thomas will continue to stand by his associational standing if it’s brought up again.
It seems today was a good news - bad news day.
Always a mixed bag these days.