All good, friend. I just think this is possible for us to defeat, even at the ballot box. The American people are powerful when they decide to wield their votes for the actual, true betterment of the country and our democracy. I really think we can do this, together.
It’s both. I’ve spent plenty of time in Texas and trust me, there are more than plenty voters over the moon about this.
Right, which was in the early 1800s. For better or worse, it’s been a major component of their role for 90% of the nation’s history. You’re right though, I erred in using “entire point”.
They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them.
Yup, because they had control of the Senate. They were voted in. I’m not denying that Republicans are immoral, unethical scumbags with the intent to power game the system, but we have no tools to fix that in our current system other than overwhelming it. It only gets worse the longer we wait.
There really aren’t a lot of other options for the citizenry. You can LARP at revolution or whatever, but I’m not volunteering first and I don’t see a lot of others doing so either. I, and a lot of other vulnerable people, are not going to come out on top, so I’ll pass on that solution.
Fact of the matter is, we could have elected Hillary in 2016. Sure, there was Republican meddling and Comey and yada yada, but it was fully within our abilities and we failed. The Supreme Court would look entirely different right now and we would still have medical rights. We did flip the senate, so it was fully in play before and then Mitch would not have been able to block the Garland appointment. Those are concrete outcomes from something that was fully possible for us to prevent. So I’m just not comfortable writing off voting as worthless at this stage, even with the acknowledged difficulties, gerrymandering, etc.
Voters stunned.
Voters pleased with the choice they’ve made because of their insane religious beliefs. This is the leopard eating the other faces.
If they already had ranked choice, I doubt this would be on the ballot.
No worries! I’m full of rage on all this nonsense lately too and I’ve been in that same mode. I’m happy to join with you in November and in the meantime to start to fix this nonsense!
Of course there’s a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.
The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That’s the crime here. Even then, it’s important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That’s been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That’s the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.
We really need an amendment or two around medical care. However, the same problem preventing that is what is causing the need in the first place: Republicans in national and state legislatures. The judiciary sucks right now, but it’s really not their job to do anything but evaluate whether this is constitutional and it likely is (in a post-Dobbs world). I’d love to see the right to privacy ruling come back, but that’s not happening. All of those assumptions can be changed with dedicated, long-term strategic voting and a bit of luck with justice health. Please vote.
Edit: Somebody replied and I have you blocked. Just don’t want you to have to wait for a response. Lemmy should really just hide my comments from you so we don’t run into this issue, but such is life.
The Bible takes place almost entirely in the middle east and I would guess this guy’s mental reel of it looks like an Imagine Dragons concert.
All they have to do is redefine “establishment”. That’s child’s play for this court.
To be fair, this was the case in my secular(-ish) public school as well and I believe it was there until the early 2000s. The catholic church has many sins (which Squid did a great job laying out above), but I don’t think they, as a group, endorse the concept of corporal punishment like they do with anti-choice practices or the rampant pedophilia. That’s a cultural issue with certain regions of the US.
Does anyone happen to have the link they provide for proof? Not questioning that it’s happening, I would just like to do further reading.
Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don’t know who the guy is yet). I’ve met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.
I’m not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It’s also fully possible I’m getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I’m not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.
I’m not so worried about the direct effect of seeing the commandments on the wall as much as the chilling effect it introduces into the classroom for teachers and older students. Something like this conveys support from authority and presses down on those who do not support those ideals.
Lol that’s a fair take. I’m playing it right now to prep for Erdtree, so it’s likely just stuck in my head.
I think that’s a valid take I’d like to see discussion on. For me, I think it’s not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I’m certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.
Not really, no. Letters from Thomas Jefferson don’t generally get referenced in court. Now, the establishment clause might have an impact here, because this is definitely going to SCOTUS next year. The real question is whether they will respect the actual text of the first amendment or their bullshit “historical standards”.
My condolences. I don’t like giving away personal info on these sites, but I lived in a similar environment for a roughly similar period of time. I know how draining it can be and I’m glad it sounds like you escaped like I did.