2022 SCOTUS rulings

[GannonFan]

So infringing upon the right to assemble to prevent attempts to influence judges would be kind of like infringing upon the right to bear arms to limit assault weapons?

If you’re a “strict constructionist” I would think so.

I never heard a strict constructionist be against permits being required for assemblies.

[kalm]

If you’re a “strict constructionist” I would think so.

I never heard a strict constructionist be against permits being required for assemblies.

Probably.

[UNI88]

If you’re a “strict constructionist” I would think so.

I never heard a strict constructionist be against permits being required for assemblies.

Good point. And does the right to assembly include the right to assemble in whatever public space you want?

[Skjellyfetti]

The Constitution doesn't say. So, you can't interpret it to add any qualifications that aren't present in the text. Right?

[GannonFan]

The Constitution doesn't say. So, you can't interpret it to add any qualifications that aren't present in the text. Right?

I assume you're being glib. Outside of maybe Clarence Thomas, I can't think of any SCOTUS judge ever who would even come in the remote vicinity of the purposefully over-simple interpretation of "contextualist" or "originalist" that you're trying to straw man into the discussion here. Are you looking for a serious discussion or are you content with the drive-by?

[BDKJMU]

The Constitution doesn't say. So, you can't interpret it to add any qualifications that aren't present in the text. Right?

I assume you're being glib. Outside of maybe Clarence Thomas, I can't think of any SCOTUS judge ever who would even come in the remote vicinity of the purposefully over-simple interpretation of "contextualist" or "originalist" that you're trying to straw man into the discussion here. Are you looking for a serious discussion or are you content with the drive-by?

Are you referring to only alive ones? Scalia was certainly an originalist.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

[UNI88]

The Constitution doesn't say. So, you can't interpret it to add any qualifications that aren't present in the text. Right?

Can I protest in the House of Representatives while it's in session? During a presidential press conference?

Based on your interpretation, security concerns should not trump my right to assembly.

This opens up a new world of opportunities for harassment, oops, I meant peaceful protest.

[GannonFan]

I assume you're being glib. Outside of maybe Clarence Thomas, I can't think of any SCOTUS judge ever who would even come in the remote vicinity of the purposefully over-simple interpretation of "contextualist" or "originalist" that you're trying to straw man into the discussion here. Are you looking for a serious discussion or are you content with the drive-by?

Are you referring to only alive ones? Scalia was certainly an originalist.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

Sure he was, but he was always far more nuanced than Thomas has and continues to be. I was referring to the intentionally simplistic definition that Skelly was trying to proffer up in this discussion.

[houndawg]

The street is public territory

Irrelevant. It is a violation of federal law to protest outside of a fed judges residence, punishable by up to 1 year in prison. Doesn’t matter if the protestors are on the street, sidewalk, or lawn.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

Don't be such a drama queen.

[Skjellyfetti]

This decision is going to live in infamy.

And, it's like many Conk positions and not thinking through or offering a viable alternative to the status quo.

"Overturn Obamacare!"

"Ok. Have you thought about the repercussions of that and do you have a plan?"

"Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...."





"Overturn Roe v. Wade!"

"Ok. Have you thought about the repercussions of that and do you have a plan?"

A Baton Rouge mother has a week to make an unthinkable decision - carry her baby to term even though she says doctors tell her it will not survive or find another state where she can have an abortion.

“It’s hard knowing that ... you know I’m carrying it to bury it...you know what I’m saying,” asked Nancy Davis who is 13 weeks pregnant with her second child.

Davis got her first ultrasound at Woman’s Hospital when she was 10 weeks pregnant. She and her boyfriend were excited to welcome their new baby, but soon learned the pregnancy would not go the way they planned.

“It was an abnormal ultrasound, and they noticed the top of the baby’s head was missing and the skull was missing, the top of the skull was missing,” Davis explained.

Davis says her baby was diagnosed with acrania. A rare and fatal condition, where the baby’s skull fails to form in the womb. According to health experts, babies with this condition only survive minutes to hours after birth. But because Davis’s life was not in danger and the baby’s condition does not fall under Louisiana Department of Health’s list of qualifying conditions, she was denied an abortion. Unsure about what to do, Davis is faced with a tough decision. Either carry the baby to term, or cross state lines to get an abortion.

https://www.wafb.com/2022/08/15/mother- ... condition/

[AZGrizFan]

Lol. There is no need for a “viable alternative” to Roe V Wade. It’s called “States Rights”. You should check it out.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why don't states need a viable alternative?

Ok, so states had "trigger laws" that went into effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Their shitty implementation doesn't matter or shouldn't be criticized? Not really sure how "states rights" absolves them of criticism.

[SeattleGriz]

Lol. There is no need for a “viable alternative” to Roe V Wade. It’s called “States Rights”. You should check it out.

Can't she simply drive across state lines?

[Skjellyfetti]

Lol. There is no need for a “viable alternative” to Roe V Wade. It’s called “States Rights”. You should check it out.

Can't she simply drive across state lines?

Louisiana is bordered by Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas. So, will take more than just driving across the state line.

Some states have penalties for seeking abortions in other states. Not sure about Louisiana.

[AZGrizFan]

Why don't states need a viable alternative?

Ok, so states had "trigger laws" that went into effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Their shitty implementation doesn't matter or shouldn't be criticized? Not really sure how "states rights" absolves them of criticism.

Point being (that you obviously missed): There WAS a viable alternative—it’s called returning the right to the state, where it rightfully belongs. Now, whether each individual state does it righty or wrongly can be debated, but the ISSUE didn’t need an “alternative”. The alternative was already in place.

[kalm]

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

The People of Praise, a secretive Christian faith group that counts the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, considered women’s obedience and subservience to men as one of its key early teachings, according to leaked remarks and writings of the wife of the group’s founder.

A leaked video of a recent private People of Praise event, marking its 50th anniversary, shows Dorothy Ranaghan explaining how some female followers of the faith group cried intensely in reaction to the group’s early teachings on “headship” and the “roles of men and women”, in which men are considered divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and dominant to women.………….

In her early writings, Dorothy Ranaghan emphasized the need for women to be “self-giving, responsible and reserved”. In a 1978 article that appeared in New Covenant magazine, called “Fully a Woman”, childbearing is described as a “central reality of womanhood” that “determines our presence in the world”, even for those who “by chance or choice” did not have children.

“The child in the womb expands the mother’s body, changing its dimensions. As her body yields, so do the borders of privacy and selfishness. Her very existence gives to another.” Women who are most admired, she wrote, “are not private persons, but are surrendered and available to care for others”.

“Pregnancy teaches a woman that others have a claim on her very person for the service of life. Rather than annihilating her, pregnancy makes her a new person, radiant and strong: a mother,” she wrote.

Once women gave birth in the People of Praise, work to care for them is divided on gender lines, according to Adrian Reimers, a Catholic theological critic and early member of the People of Praise who was dismissed in 1985 and wrote about his experience.

Reimers’ book critiquing the group, called Not Reliable Guides, states that men in People of Praise “were quietly taught by their heads and leaders not to change or rinse out diapers” and that women’s emotions were “distrusted”. Pastoral problems were often addressed by asking a woman where she was in her menstrual cycle.

Women, Reimers wrote, played a “decidedly secondary role to men” and a married woman was “expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband’s authority” and under his pastoral care. A guide on the group’s approach to outreach in the Caribbean, Reimers said, explicitly stated: “We should probably deal with the Caribbean matriarchal system by quietly developing an alternate rather than encouraging a confrontation.”

[GannonFan]

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

The People of Praise, a secretive Christian faith group that counts the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, considered women’s obedience and subservience to men as one of its key early teachings, according to leaked remarks and writings of the wife of the group’s founder.

A leaked video of a recent private People of Praise event, marking its 50th anniversary, shows Dorothy Ranaghan explaining how some female followers of the faith group cried intensely in reaction to the group’s early teachings on “headship” and the “roles of men and women”, in which men are considered divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and dominant to women.………….

In her early writings, Dorothy Ranaghan emphasized the need for women to be “self-giving, responsible and reserved”. In a 1978 article that appeared in New Covenant magazine, called “Fully a Woman”, childbearing is described as a “central reality of womanhood” that “determines our presence in the world”, even for those who “by chance or choice” did not have children.

“The child in the womb expands the mother’s body, changing its dimensions. As her body yields, so do the borders of privacy and selfishness. Her very existence gives to another.” Women who are most admired, she wrote, “are not private persons, but are surrendered and available to care for others”.

“Pregnancy teaches a woman that others have a claim on her very person for the service of life. Rather than annihilating her, pregnancy makes her a new person, radiant and strong: a mother,” she wrote.

Once women gave birth in the People of Praise, work to care for them is divided on gender lines, according to Adrian Reimers, a Catholic theological critic and early member of the People of Praise who was dismissed in 1985 and wrote about his experience.

Reimers’ book critiquing the group, called Not Reliable Guides, states that men in People of Praise “were quietly taught by their heads and leaders not to change or rinse out diapers” and that women’s emotions were “distrusted”. Pastoral problems were often addressed by asking a woman where she was in her menstrual cycle.

Women, Reimers wrote, played a “decidedly secondary role to men” and a married woman was “expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband’s authority” and under his pastoral care. A guide on the group’s approach to outreach in the Caribbean, Reimers said, explicitly stated: “We should probably deal with the Caribbean matriarchal system by quietly developing an alternate rather than encouraging a confrontation.”

I think they are whackos. But I don't see where her husband needs to testify in hearings. I don't recall her ever saying in her testimony that she would have to ask her husband how to rule in cases that came before her, you know, the job she was going through the hearings for. Your idea of having him testify sounds perilously close to a religious litmus test idea. Even for the whacky religions, I don't see that as a good idea. Why are you against religious freedom?

[kalm]

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

I think they are whackos. But I don't see where her husband needs to testify in hearings. I don't recall her ever saying in her testimony that she would have to ask her husband how to rule in cases that came before her, you know, the job she was going through the hearings for. Your idea of having him testify sounds perilously close to a religious litmus test idea. Even for the whacky religions, I don't see that as a good idea. Why are you against religious freedom?

I sincerely hope this is responding in kind - satire.

[HI54UNI]

Here's the link to the full article since Kalm never posts the links to the shit he posts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -of-praise

[kalm]

Here's the link to the full article since Kalm never posts the links to the shit he posts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -of-praise

Thank you. Sometimes I forget or I’m distracted.

By all means, read the rest of the article.

[UNI88]

Here's the link to the full article since Kalm never posts the links to the shit he posts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -of-praise

Thank you. Sometimes I forget or I’m distracted.

By all means, read the rest of the article.

kalm, could you explain to me why so many of your fellow illiberals are appalled by the way that conservative Christian sects treat women but deflect and defend conservative Islamic sects that treat women just as poorly if not worse? I don't understand the logic that makes that seem reasonable.

[kalm]

Thank you. Sometimes I forget or I’m distracted.

By all means, read the rest of the article.

kalm, could you explain to me why so many of your fellow illiberals are appalled by the way that conservative Christian sects treat women but deflect and defend conservative Islamic sects that treat women just as poorly if not worse? I don't understand the logic that makes that seem reasonable.

I don’t think we follow the same illiberals.

The ones I follow denounce patriarchy including Muslim.

[kalm]

Thank you. Sometimes I forget or I’m distracted.

By all means, read the rest of the article.

kalm, could you explain to me why so many of your fellow illiberals are appalled by the way that conservative Christian sects treat women but deflect and defend conservative Islamic sects that treat women just as poorly if not worse? I don't understand the logic that makes that seem reasonable.

Can you explain why your fellow conservatives love the Saudis?

Oh wait…never mind.

[GannonFan]

I think they are whackos. But I don't see where her husband needs to testify in hearings. I don't recall her ever saying in her testimony that she would have to ask her husband how to rule in cases that came before her, you know, the job she was going through the hearings for. Your idea of having him testify sounds perilously close to a religious litmus test idea. Even for the whacky religions, I don't see that as a good idea. Why are you against religious freedom?

I sincerely hope this is responding in kind - satire.

I don't follow on this, you'll have to elaborate.

[kalm]

Well…at least he’s honest.