|
Post by funhouse on Jun 27, 2022 15:27:35 GMT -5
Remember that the far right's disdain for islamists is because they're of a different color and speak a different language, when it comes to their views on culture they are allies.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 27, 2022 15:42:09 GMT -5
It's the only hope. This court is only just starting and when they are done the country won't look the same. Today, it was eroding the separation of church and state. Later this week it will be a landmark decision removing the EPA's power to enforce national environmental regulations (a decision that will set back any hope of reducing climate change by 100 years.)
The court must be reformed. It's not representative of the people in the least. (But saying this, I am also doubtful that the courage and political will exist to get it done.)
I can only hope that Biden's weak performance will alter how democrats choose to vote next election. Hopefully the next progressive candidate gets the nomination. It's not a strong hope, because it seems like no matter how weak a President and party performs, the people still go with a neoliberal candidate. But maybe now that we've been set back decades, that's the trigger required to convince people to actually vote for progress.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 27, 2022 16:07:34 GMT -5
Worth a watch if anybody is curious about what can be done specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Day Tripper on Jun 28, 2022 3:59:32 GMT -5
And they can fuck off with their pro-life term. Someone asked am I pro-life or pro-choise... I mean, fuck off, I am pro-life and pro-choise, you can't trick me with that shit terminology. We should not allow that pro-life term to be used in that way. ✌️🧡 It's never been about "pro-life", it's about control. Old perverts wanting to have more control over women's bodies. They probably even fantasise about raping some vulnerable girl and then force them to carry their child because no one would want to otherwise. Sick. And of course there's the economical side too. The prison industry makes 265 billion dollars a year from the work prisoners do, and of course the people most likely to go to jail are the same ones who were born into families where abortion would've been a viable option. And the ones who won't go to prison are likely to stay doing manual labour and making capital to the upper class. This is more than a human rights issue. It's a class issue too.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jun 28, 2022 5:54:01 GMT -5
The US and the UK are both utter cesspits these days. Filled with fucking nutters.
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Jun 28, 2022 6:42:13 GMT -5
Pretty speechless tbh. The world seemed to be making progress for so long and has suddenly pulled the hand break and done a screeching u turn. The world is just a complete train wreck, god help the kids today.
|
|
|
Post by draper on Jun 28, 2022 8:28:10 GMT -5
I read that in 2016 Trump needed support of ultra right wing conservatives to be able to win the election. To have their support he promised to install ultra conservative judges in that supreme court so they would be able to turn this abortion law round.
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Jun 28, 2022 17:42:26 GMT -5
It's the only hope. This court is only just starting and when they are done the country won't look the same. Today, it was eroding the separation of church and state. Later this week it will be a landmark decision removing the EPA's power to enforce national environmental regulations (a decision that will set back any hope of reducing climate change by 100 years.)
The court must be reformed. It's not representative of the people in the least. (But saying this, I am also doubtful that the courage and political will exist to get it done.)
I can only hope that Biden's weak performance will alter how democrats choose to vote next election. Hopefully the next progressive candidate gets the nomination. It's not a strong hope, because it seems like no matter how weak a President and party performs, the people still go with a neoliberal candidate. But maybe now that we've been set back decades, that's the trigger required to convince people to actually vote for progress.
It's more the moneyed interests than the people, but it's hard to name a progressive candidate right now who could appeal to the whole country and pull working-class voters off the Republicans (who of course don't represent their interests but still appeal to many in their approach). Do you see anyone? (Bernie, who had that ability, will be going on 83 in 2024.)
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 28, 2022 20:46:30 GMT -5
I can only hope that Biden's weak performance will alter how democrats choose to vote next election. Hopefully the next progressive candidate gets the nomination. It's not a strong hope, because it seems like no matter how weak a President and party performs, the people still go with a neoliberal candidate. But maybe now that we've been set back decades, that's the trigger required to convince people to actually vote for progress.
It's more the moneyed interests than the people, but it's hard to name a progressive candidate right now who could appeal to the whole country and pull working-class voters off the Republicans (who of course don't represent their interests but still appeal to many in their approach). Do you see anyone? (Bernie, who had that ability, will be going on 83 in 2024.)
I'm partial to Nina Turner. But she's not doing well in her smaller elections at the moment so I doubt she'd do well running for the presidency. But if she does run, she has my vote. She at least has the right energy and policy. Maybe for 2028.
I know Kyle Kulinski is really pushing Marianne Williamson as of late. But I think she will be written off as crazy again just as she was for 2020 elections. But she does seem to have changed her policy in the right direction. Other than that, I can't think of anybody.
I'd really like to see Bernie/Turner. That way, if Bernie were to die in office, the country would be in good hands.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 29, 2022 2:10:54 GMT -5
Pretty speechless tbh. The world seemed to be making progress for so long and has suddenly pulled the hand break and done a screeching u turn. The world is just a complete train wreck, god help the kids today. Trumpism has enabled all these extremists to come back out from under their rocks and allowed them a mainstream platform. My hope is that Gen-Z are going to blow all these fuckers out the water over the next 10-20 years.
|
|
|
Post by Day Tripper on Jun 29, 2022 3:21:24 GMT -5
Pretty speechless tbh. The world seemed to be making progress for so long and has suddenly pulled the hand break and done a screeching u turn. The world is just a complete train wreck, god help the kids today. Trumpism has enabled all these extremists to come back out from under their rocks and allowed them a mainstream platform. My hope is that Gen-Z are going to blow all these fuckers out the water over the next 10-20 years. I'm just guessing here but I think the normal working class in the US is leaning towards Trumpism rather than taking the Democrats side? And from what I've followed the situation over there, more and more people are getting fed up with neoliberalism and how it's transferring the wealth away from the normal people to the rich. I fear we're only going to see more "Trumpism" in the future. The Democrats really need someone who gets the working class's attention. Now all that frustration goes to the Republicans, especially Trump. A lot of Trump voters didn't even particularly like him or his politics, they voted for him because they wanted some major changes in the country. They'd rather see the world burn than continue getting constantly fucked. I remember this local left wing politician in my country once saying that people from the "hoods" came up to him saying they didn't know who to vote for - him or this ex-wrestler who was running with a far right party. He replied "what? We're like complete opposites?" and he was told "yeah, but you both seem to get things done and campaign for the working class." A lot of people don't care whether you're left or right (not that there many left wing politicians in the US, the Democrats would be considered a right wing party here), they want to see results and drive.
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Jun 29, 2022 3:39:36 GMT -5
Pretty speechless tbh. The world seemed to be making progress for so long and has suddenly pulled the hand break and done a screeching u turn. The world is just a complete train wreck, god help the kids today. Trumpism has enabled all these extremists to come back out from under their rocks and allowed them a mainstream platform. My hope is that Gen-Z are going to blow all these fuckers out the water over the next 10-20 years.
In the US, the Supreme Court can stay this way for that same 20 years (or more), and prevent progress in every area, unless it is reformed, packed or abolished. Gen Z going to have to fight very, very hard to change that if they want progress and soon ... because decisions being made now will still be having an impact for decades.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 29, 2022 5:38:54 GMT -5
Trumpism has enabled all these extremists to come back out from under their rocks and allowed them a mainstream platform. My hope is that Gen-Z are going to blow all these fuckers out the water over the next 10-20 years. In the US, the Supreme Court can stay this way for that same 20 years (or more), and prevent progress in every area, unless it is reformed, packed or abolished. Gen Z going to have to fight very, very hard to change that if they want progress and soon ... because decisions being made now will still be having an impact for decades.
Aye I understand that. Just meant that hopefully that generation of kids won't just sit back and take this shit and will organise and be active in fighting these dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 29, 2022 6:53:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Jun 29, 2022 12:05:10 GMT -5
In the US, the Supreme Court can stay this way for that same 20 years (or more), and prevent progress in every area, unless it is reformed, packed or abolished. Gen Z going to have to fight very, very hard to change that if they want progress and soon ... because decisions being made now will still be having an impact for decades.
Aye I understand that. Just meant that hopefully that generation of kids won't just sit back and take this shit and will organise and be active in fighting these dinosaurs.
Yeah, for sure. Was only commenting for any American Gen Z out there, hoping that they'll not only fight but fight in a focused way to change the institutions because voting and protesting alone aren't going to get it done.
It’s easy to get really frustrated right now, and I am as well, because it truly feels like one step forward, five steps back. But that will continue to be the case unless we zero in on fixing a Court that has become far too powerful and beholden to moneyed and partisan interests.
We really can’t afford to wait this fairly young Court out for a bunch of different existential reasons.
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Jun 29, 2022 13:19:40 GMT -5
The mask slips
Twat and it's got nothing to do with him anyway.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 30, 2022 9:53:47 GMT -5
Biden seems to be caving to pressure to end the filibuster, but I think for the abortion issue only. I suppose we will see. Meanwhile, a slew of other authoritarian rulings are being made, like ending the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 30, 2022 10:52:40 GMT -5
Biden nominating anti-abortion lawyer for Federal Judge in Kentucky in apparent deal with Mitch McConnell. Why is Biden working with Republicans? Especially at a time like this. Bipartasanship is what has allowed the country to slip toward fascism. Republicans are the enemy Joe.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 30, 2022 15:38:34 GMT -5
And now SCOTUS is coming for elections. Democracy dying before our very eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 5:42:46 GMT -5
American politics/systems mystify me sometimes so please ignore if this seems stupid, but I have a question that US members might be able to answer so things are a bit clearer for me?
It's being reported here in the UK in such a way that it seems this decision has banned abortion in the US. My reading of it (which is probably wrong!) is that a nationwide court has ruled that it is a state-level decision as to what the laws governing this are and it's nothing to do with the constitution governing the national level laws which cover all citizens/states.
Is that right?
If this is the case, shouldn't the anger be aimed at the lawmakers in certain states as opposed to the judges who have made a ruling on what specifics the constitution applies to?
Genuine question as I think the idea of the rock solid 'constitutional rights' thing in the US is a great thing that we could do with here and I'm trying to work out exactly what's going on and what the implications actually are?
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jul 1, 2022 7:26:58 GMT -5
American politics/systems mystify me sometimes so please ignore if this seems stupid, but I have a question that US members might be able to answer so things are a bit clearer for me? It's being reported here in the UK in such a way that it seems this decision has banned abortion in the US. My reading of it (which is probably wrong!) is that a nationwide court has ruled that it is a state-level decision as to what the laws governing this are and it's nothing to do with the constitution governing the national level laws which cover all citizens/states. Is that right? If this is the case, shouldn't the anger be aimed at the lawmakers in certain states as opposed to the judges who have made a ruling on what specifics the constitution applies to? Genuine question as I think the idea of the rock solid 'constitutional rights' thing in the US is a great thing that we could do with here and I'm trying to work out exactly what's going on and what the implications actually are? It was previously justified by court based on interpretations of the Constitution.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S."
The newer court has thrown that interpretation out, leaving it to states to make their decision on whether to ban. So yes, your understanding is correct.
Lawmakers were supposed to codify the court decision into law so that what just happened couldn't happen. But despite democrats having over 50 years to codify it, they didn't.
The ruling they have just made is heavily influenced by personal religious beliefs, like Christianity. Leaving it to the states will result in a lot of damage to women residing in red states, which are most influenced by religious Christian beliefs, and will inevitably ban or severely limit abortion.
For context, in our constitution we also have separation of religion and government, specifically so rulings based on personal religious beliefs cannot infringe on the rights of others. And this same SCOTUS has also just ruled that prayer can now be allowed in schools again and this ruling comes after their Roe v Wade overturn. The agenda is pretty clear.
They are currently on a tirade of decisions to basically turn America into a theocracy. They are even going after the very means by which elections will be judged:
TNYT - "The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would hear a case that could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions.
The case has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including by giving the justices power to influence the presidential race if disputes arise over how state courts interpret state election laws."
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jul 1, 2022 7:34:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 10:13:46 GMT -5
American politics/systems mystify me sometimes so please ignore if this seems stupid, but I have a question that US members might be able to answer so things are a bit clearer for me? It's being reported here in the UK in such a way that it seems this decision has banned abortion in the US. My reading of it (which is probably wrong!) is that a nationwide court has ruled that it is a state-level decision as to what the laws governing this are and it's nothing to do with the constitution governing the national level laws which cover all citizens/states. Is that right? If this is the case, shouldn't the anger be aimed at the lawmakers in certain states as opposed to the judges who have made a ruling on what specifics the constitution applies to? Genuine question as I think the idea of the rock solid 'constitutional rights' thing in the US is a great thing that we could do with here and I'm trying to work out exactly what's going on and what the implications actually are? It was previously justified by court based on interpretations of the Constitution.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S."
The newer court has thrown that interpretation out, leaving it to states to make their decision on whether to ban. So yes, your understanding is correct.
Lawmakers were supposed to codify the court decision into law so that what just happened couldn't happen. But despite democrats having over 50 years to codify it, they didn't.
The ruling they have just made is heavily influenced by personal religious beliefs, like Christianity. Leaving it to the states will result in a lot of damage to women residing in red states, which are most influenced by religious Christian beliefs, and will inevitably ban or severely limit abortion.
For context, in our constitution we also have separation of religion and government, specifically so rulings based on personal religious beliefs cannot infringe on the rights of others. And this same SCOTUS has also just ruled that prayer can now be allowed in schools again and this ruling comes after their Roe v Wade overturn. The agenda is pretty clear.
They are currently on a tirade of decisions to basically turn America into a theocracy. They are even going after the very means by which elections will be judged:
TNYT - "The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would hear a case that could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions.
The case has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including by giving the justices power to influence the presidential race if disputes arise over how state courts interpret state election laws."
thank you for taking the time to explain all that, much appreciated.
Couple of follow-ups - when you say 'codify the court decision into law so that what just happened couldn't happen' do you mean make changes to the constitution itself? this is where I get a little confused as to where 'constitutional rights' conflict with 'federal laws'?
I'm confused too about that bit that hasn't been reported here, namely "SCOTUS has also just ruled that prayer can now be allowed in schools again". Does this mean that it had been banned on a national scale? Surely that goes against "separation of religion and government" in the other direction if so?
Overall the 'new' situation seems to be very like the one that existed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for many years until recent changes, again a situation that arose from religion/state interface.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jul 1, 2022 11:09:05 GMT -5
It was previously justified by court based on interpretations of the Constitution.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S."
The newer court has thrown that interpretation out, leaving it to states to make their decision on whether to ban. So yes, your understanding is correct.
Lawmakers were supposed to codify the court decision into law so that what just happened couldn't happen. But despite democrats having over 50 years to codify it, they didn't.
The ruling they have just made is heavily influenced by personal religious beliefs, like Christianity. Leaving it to the states will result in a lot of damage to women residing in red states, which are most influenced by religious Christian beliefs, and will inevitably ban or severely limit abortion.
For context, in our constitution we also have separation of religion and government, specifically so rulings based on personal religious beliefs cannot infringe on the rights of others. And this same SCOTUS has also just ruled that prayer can now be allowed in schools again and this ruling comes after their Roe v Wade overturn. The agenda is pretty clear.
They are currently on a tirade of decisions to basically turn America into a theocracy. They are even going after the very means by which elections will be judged:
TNYT - "The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would hear a case that could radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures independent power, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions.
The case has the potential to affect many aspects of the 2024 election, including by giving the justices power to influence the presidential race if disputes arise over how state courts interpret state election laws."
thank you for taking the time to explain all that, much appreciated.
Couple of follow-ups - when you say 'codify the court decision into law so that what just happened couldn't happen' do you mean make changes to the constitution itself? this is where I get a little confused as to where 'constitutional rights' conflict with 'federal laws'?
I'm confused too about that bit that hasn't been reported here, namely "SCOTUS has also just ruled that prayer can now be allowed in schools again". Does this mean that it had been banned on a national scale? Surely that goes against "separation of religion and government" in the other direction if so?
Overall the 'new' situation seems to be very like the one that existed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for many years until recent changes, again a situation that arose from religion/state interface.
I don't believe it necessarily amends the constitution, but it amends the working framework, the code law which is its own thing that is based on Constitutional law. But this bit goes over my head to be honest.
Our public education in America is government funded. It's federal law that government cannot endorse any religion, which in our history has also been challenged and further refined, but the basis is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So for a government funded public educational entity to endorse any religion, or prohibit its practice, would be illegal. Thus teachers/staff can privately practice, but they can't publicly share their views in an affirmative way or denounce the beliefs of others as they are representatives of government institution while in session.
Thomas Jefferson -
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
We have plenty of private schools here, which are religious institutions that do teach Christianity exclusively and often, unfortunately, not good science, sometimes even dabbling in outright fundamentalism. But for public education, the topic must remain neutral so as not to cause any children or persons discomfort. There are some exceptions. Some forms of government, especially local, play fast and loose with the wording and will allow plaques and statues to be presented to the public which are "acknowledgements" of religion. So let's say a statue of Jesus or something. They argue that it's not a government endorsement of religion, but rather an acknowledgement of the public beliefs. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Many atheist organizations, like The Satanic Temple, will then challenge this "acknowledgement" and argue for their own statue to be presented alongside it as an "acknowledgement" of their own beliefs. The Baphomet usually. The government will then either allow it, which becomes hilarious. Or they will usually remove the original "acknowledgement" of their religion that causes the problem. Generally, they choose to remove it, because at the end of the day, it's an endorsement, not an acknowledgement and they don't want to see a Baphomet every day or anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2022 11:26:40 GMT -5
thanks The Invisible Sun, that's extremely interesting, cheers
|
|