The Supremes

[Neonmoon 38,126]

White Supremacy, the Confederacy, Republicanism, Trumpism, Evangelicalism, whatever name you ascribe does not matter. It’s been the same group of shitbags since the word go. They mostly still control the areas on the coast between and including Texas and Florida, up to Kentucky, and other scattered areas. 

They were defeated in the Civil War, but eventually regained control after the Comprise of 1877 ended reconstruction. They began to disenfranchise blacks again by passing Jim Crow Laws, and in the early 20th century began, the daughters of the confederacy had textbooks rewrite history about the war of northern aggression and the lost cause. Newly elected “democrats” begun to erect monuments to confederate soldiers, generals, and politicians that supported them

The Great Depression and WW2 happened which led to a wave of “democrat” Presidents because democrats cared about the poor, which initially included a lot of whites after the Great Depression. They were factory workers, coal miners, etc that made up Unions. JFK was killed, MLK was killed, and LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act in 1965. All of the southern democrats (aka racists) said WTF, and left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans party. 

Roe happened in 1973, and all the crazy evangelicals (who were also poor) left the poor supporting Democrat party and went to the Republican Party. So all the racists and evangelicals started planning their overtake of the Supreme Court and elimination of the Civil Rights Act. However, there was a problem, the Republican Party was originally full of rich business owners that wanted less government, no regulations, no unions, more money. But slowly but surely, the racists and evangelicals took over, with the help of the “fiscally conservative” businessman policies. 

Like attacking FCC regulations (government bad, money good), they eliminated the fairness doctrine. This led to Rush Limbaugh spewing hate speech 247 into their ears. Republicans were bought off and granted racist Murdoch a waiver for foreign owned broadcast stations aka Fox News. https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0728/28014.html

Fox News began to stretch the the word “news”.  

Then, they finally had their trigger event. A black person was elected President. Republicans lost their shit and started going off the deep end. This was no longer fringe, they pushed Birther theories on Fox News. The anti-government tea party nut jobs were given spots. Then Trump came along and said the quiet parts outloud. Their base fucking loved it, because their base were racists, and evangelicals, and anti-immigrants, anti-government,   And it was their time to shine 

 

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23,222]

11 hours ago, Starfleet Command said:

Sounds like WV v. EPA is coming down tomorrow?  As horrible as Dobbs is, I think that's the case that pretty much ends this country's ability to compete globally and all but resigns our future to the third world.  An admin with a spine would ignore the ruling and bring this thing to a head now, but we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[elfenix 34,143]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Telling modern day schoolchildren that they are active oppressors seems rightfully objectionable, though.

CRT analysis would actually be that even if not a single living person did something racist, if the system is racist then you still have racist outcomes.  so the analysis can absolve current generations.  it was literally developed to answer the question of why, if society now is not racist, do we still see racist outcomes?  that's how fucking poisonous rufo's bullshit is. 

[ultimaton 2,954]

1 hour ago, Gap03 said:

Hopefully they've ordered about $50,000 worth of gay porn, dildos, Plan B and pregnancy tests and had it shipped to the offending justices' home addresses ...

"Don't threaten me with a good time!" - "Boof" Kavanaugh

[F250 28,568]

The only thing that comes to mind when Icono makes a post.

 

[DDD Dad 14,078]

2 hours ago, Macklemore said:

Umm I think the reason you had a timeout was because you wanted to put a bullet in a poster’s head. That’s not confirmation I’m icono. I’m not. My foray into the cesspool is done for now.

Okay Icono. 
 

 

[HornOnTheBayou 8,858]

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,640]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:02 PM, David Dennison said:

So you're completely down with a non-Christian coach leading his or her team in a non-Christian prayer on the regular?

We need more Muslim coaches. But they probably coach soccer.

[Pig Bellmont 8,637]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,640]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:12 PM, Dnaguy said:

Friday Night lights!

 

Those uniforms look hideous. 

[Macklemore 2,860]

27 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We need more Muslim coaches. But they probably coach soccer.

I wanted Robert Saleh, a Muslim, as coach of the Texans. Instead they hired an unqualified clown. He can bust out his prayer rug pray to Allah on the 50 yard line for all I care.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,555]

7 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

I wanted Robert Saleh, a Muslim, as coach of the Texans. Instead they hired an unqualified clown. He can bust out his prayer rug pray to Allah on the 50 yard line for all I care.

But what if they want to pray during the national anthem by kneeling? 

[Macklemore 2,860]

Just now, SmokeyTheBear said:

But what if they want to pray during the national anthem by kneeling? 

Free exercise from a Constitutional, state actor point of view. The public high school kids are good if they want to do that. Now if you’re talking NFL, the players collective bargaining agreement with the league and player contracts might have a say in player conduct during the anthem.

[Pancho 43,212]

9 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Free exercise from a Constitutional, state actor point of view. The public high school kids are good if they want to do that. Now if you’re talking NFL, the players collective bargaining agreement with the league and player contracts might have a say in player conduct during the anthem.

Once again from above:

Why is teaching Black students about their history and how it played a role in the birthing of America a bad thing?  Why don't you and other radical right wingers like flatty don't want Black people to learn their history? 

Why don't you want White people to learn this history?

[SmokeyTheBear 5,555]

Just now, Macklemore said:

Free exercise from a Constitutional, state actor point of view. The public high school kids are good if they want to do that. Now if you’re talking NFL, the players collective bargaining agreement with the league and player contracts might have a say in player conduct during the anthem.

Just so we are rounding out the box of acceptance here. We are good with a black HS coach having a prayer involving black players with a fist raised in the air? 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Why don't you want White people to learn this history?

Perhaps, because it is collectively our  history. The radical RW appears to be intent on returning to a modern version of segregation wherein the only acceptable published and taught version of history and discussion thereafter is that which reinforces the patriarchal land-owning white male who has dominion over all. By stripping public education of resources and safety, de facto segregation--which already exists in most school districts due to ISD boundary rules and proximity, makes it easy to inoculate students against learning that which runs counter to those doctrines.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,005]

12 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I have been talking about the new right, or as the guru of the new right, Curtis Yarvin,  prefers to call it (because the name is “cool,”) the deep right, for several months. 
 

“The deep right knows that all government is absolute. Because of this, the deep right is only interested in paths to absolute power.”

 

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/principles-of-the-deep-right

What a weirdo

[Pig Bellmont 8,637]

26 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Just so we are rounding out the box of acceptance here. We are good with a black HS coach having a prayer involving black players with a fist raised in the air? 

Inconsistent or hypocritical application of the law is not a hindrance for SCOTUS. They are completely out of control 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We need more Muslim coaches. But they probably coach soccer.

One of my children's soccer coaches was Muslim. Terrific coach, great love for the game, team was flourishing and the players were so unhappy when he took another job out of state at the end of the school year. Unfortunately, the football coach was the AD, and he just grabbed one of the position coaches who had a passing familiarity with the game. It showed.

 

 

With respect to the court case regarding the praying coach, student led freedom of expression used to be the preferred parlance as compared to the government official with the power. 

If the school was diverse like our family's (but I bet it isn't),  *Buddhist music played by some of the band/orchestra members strolling around or *Chinese Dragon music performed on the field while that coach and his entourage are kneeling would be inspiring. I believe Yinglong (sp?) is a rain deity and I, for one, would welcome any divine assistance in that matter we can get.

 

*I am woefully undereducated on various religions, so hopefully this isn't out of line. No offense meant.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Mrs Whiggins

[Macklemore 2,860]

49 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Just so we are rounding out the box of acceptance here. We are good with a black HS coach having a prayer involving black players with a fist raised in the air? 

If you’re analogy is that the coach is putting the fist in the air in the free exercise of his religion and as long as the players aren’t compelled to participate the yes

Edited June 29, 2022 by Macklemore

[Macklemore 2,860]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Once again from above:

 

Why is teaching Black students about their history and how it played a role in the birthing of America a bad thing?  Why don't you and other radical right wingers like flatty don't want Black people to learn their history? 

Why don't you want White people to learn this history?

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with kids “learning history” - not just history from the perspective of the “winners”. Teach about what happened to the Native Americans, horrors of slavery, the Mexican side of things when it comes to the Alamo, etc.

My issue is with categorizing white kids kids sitting in a class today or their parents as being oppressors and propagating white supremacy by solely looking at their skin color and not by their actions. Is there a legacy that exists to this day of institutions that have been warped by racism - yes. However the existence of that does not mean whites as a class today are active proponents of white supremacy.

A teacher dividing kids in a class - labeling her white ones as privileged, white supremacists, oppressors is a problem. Dismissing the history of achievements that this country has - denigrating the good of this country as not worthy of pride because some of it was achieved by “dead white men” is something I have problem with.

Have balance in teaching history. Humans of all stripes have done horrible things over the millennia. Muslims, not just Europeans, engaged in the African slave trade for hundreds of years. Other races and cultures have conquered foreign lands. Is that being taught? 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Macklemore

[Biff Tannen 45,240]

16 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

A teacher dividing kids in a class - labeling her white ones as privileged, white supremacists, oppressors is a problem. Dismissing the history of achievements that this country has - denigrating the good of this country as not worthy of pride because some of it was achieved by “dead white men” is something I have problem with.

I have a very hard time believing this is actually happening, but ok.

[royiv 9,045]

15 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

A teacher dividing kids in a class - labeling her white ones as privileged, white supremacists, oppressors is a problem. 

I thought you posted yesterday that you were going to stop posting on this board, but since you’re still here can you please provide some reference on where this is happening? I haven’t seen you offer any proof of this claim. I have a lot of friends with kids and a good friend that is an elementary school teacher and none of them have ever said that this is a thing. 

[jimmyjazz 45,220]

He's been asked many times, even in the last day or so, to back up this claim.  He won't do it.  He can't.  He's a troll.

[Pig Bellmont 8,637]

Tomorrow the EPA will be gutted. So glad SCOTUS has decided it’s no longer a co-equal branch of government :eyeroll:

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pig Bellmont

[immamac 41,790]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Tomorrow the EPA will be gutted. So glad SCOTUS has decided it’s no longer a co-equal branch of government :eyeroll:

How hard is it going to be to reverse the damage done in the summer of 2022, if things go the way of the people in these midterms and in 2024. Is it a decade+ or does shit start moving pretty fast? 

[Neonmoon 38,126]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

How hard is it going to be to reverse the damage done in the summer of 2022, if things go the way of the people in these midterms and in 2024. Is it a decade+ or does shit start moving pretty fast? 

Extremely hard. 

Two Options

1. Legislature

   - Codify Roe v Wade. That would take Dems winning a ton more senate seats, and those people willing to break Filibuster rule

 - Expand SCOTUS - again, need more senate seats

2. SCOTUS

   - have 3 republican justices die while Democrat is president (and have control of house so Mitch doesn't sabotage appointments)

Even then, the damage is already done. Having SCOTUS ignore precedence, statutes, etc. It's already ruined the legitimacy of the court. 

[Captainant 26,929]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

How hard is it going to be to reverse the damage done in the summer of 2022, if things go the way of the people in these midterms and in 2024. Is it a decade+ or does shit start moving pretty fast? 

Buddy once the cancer fascism gets it's hooks in, it takes fucking chemotherapy to fix it. Barring a major political and systemic upheaval, it's going to be decades to unfuck things. 

[chainsaw 9,695]

Just now, Captainant said:

Buddy once the cancer fascism gets it's hooks in, it takes fucking chemotherapy to fix it. Barring a major political and systemic upheaval, it's going to be decades to unfuck things. 

You're talking about watering the Tree of Liberty.

[royiv 9,045]

9 minutes ago, immamac said:

How hard is it going to be to reverse the damage done in the summer of 2022, if things go the way of the people in these midterms and in 2024. Is it a decade+ or does shit start moving pretty fast? 

Decades unless a bunch of conservative justices die or resign in the next few years. The Trump appointees have completely delegitimized the Court. The will of the people no longer matters. The only way to fix it is to expand the court, but there's no way to do that with a President who says he doesn't support it and a Senate that won't get rid of the filibuster.

[royiv 9,045]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Buddy once the cancer fascism gets it's hooks in, it takes fucking chemotherapy to fix it. Barring a major political and systemic upheaval, it's going to be decades to unfuck things. 

I'm afraid we get to upheaval before things can get unfucked. 

[Brisketexan 103,738]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Then, they finally had their trigger event. A black person was elected President. Republicans lost their shit and started going off the deep end. This was no longer fringe, they pushed Birther theories on Fox News. The anti-government tea party nut jobs were given spots. Then Trump came along and said the quiet parts outloud. Their base fucking loved it, because their base were racists, and evangelicals, and anti-immigrants, anti-government,   And it was their time to shine 

This.  Long ago, GOLL once said "man.....I truly didn't know how badly people were going to react to the US electing a black man president.  I didn't realize how much that would flip them the fuck out."

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Even then, the damage is already done. Having SCOTUS ignore precedence, statutes, etc. It's already ruined the legitimacy of the court. 

This.  When the history books are written (presumably by historians in some other country, because we'll be a closed state by then), they will mark this term as the turning point for SCOTUS losing its legitimacy and just playing Calvinball. 

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Buddy once the cancer fascism gets it's hooks in, it takes fucking chemotherapy to fix it. Barring a major political and systemic upheaval, it's going to be decades to unfuck things. 

Correct.  One doesn't dig this deep a hole and then just hop out.  It's going to be a long, muddy, painful climb.  But have heart, we aren't even at the "climb out" stage.  We're still digging furiously to make the hole deeper.

[Captainant 26,929]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  One doesn't dig this deep a hole and then just hop out.  It's going to be a long, muddy, painful climb.  But have heart, we aren't even at the "climb out" stage.  We're still digging furiously to make the hole deeper.

Hey maybe Europe will return the favor and save America from fascism! That'd be some nice symmetry to history. 

Just another reason to not have kids though. I would be mortified to bring a child into a christofascist state

[jimmyjazz 45,220]

Dumb question, but hey, that's never stopped me before:

How hard would it be for California and New York to split into multiple states?

It probably wouldn't even be a net positive, given the rural nature of much of both states.

 

I'm not even drunk yet.

[wildcat09 28,627]

25 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Tomorrow the EPA will be gutted. So glad SCOTUS has decided it’s no longer a co-equal branch of government :eyeroll:

This won't get much coverage given all the other more politically salient cases, but this is a truly outrageous decision with no basis in law. Just pure "fuck Native Americans" all the way down.

[royiv 9,045]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Dumb question, but hey, that's never stopped me before:

How hard would it be for California and New York to split into multiple states?

It probably wouldn't even be a net positive, given the rural nature of much of both states.

 

I'm not even drunk yet.

The better way to achieve what you're going for here is to increase the number of seats in the house. Would be cool to combine the Dakotas while we're at it.

[royiv 9,045]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This won't get much coverage given all the other more politically salient cases, but this is a truly outrageous decision with no basis in law. Just pure "fuck Native Americans" all the way down.

Yep and it won't get much, if any, coverage since Native Americans are marginalized people in this country.

[Captainant 26,929]

Just now, royiv said:

The better way to achieve what you're going for here is to increase the number of seats in the house. Would be cool to combine the Dakotas while we're at it.

We need to dilute the power of flyover states in the Senate. A significant numerical minority of the US population is driving all of the policy in this country. If cleetus and karen don't like it, it ain't happening

[jimmyjazz 45,220]

4 minutes ago, royiv said:

The better way to achieve what you're going for here is to increase the number of seats in the house. Would be cool to combine the Dakotas while we're at it.

I've been saying that for years.  The moderate effect of reapportioning the 435 seats based on state population shifts doesn't even remotely address the fact that the total US population is something like 2.5X what it was when the # representatives was fixed.

I was just scattershooting on the comment about the Senate.

[Biff Tannen 45,240]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've been saying that for years.  The moderate effect of reapportioning the 435 seats based on state population shifts doesn't even remotely address the fact that the total US population is something like 2.5X what it was when the # representatives was fixed.

I was just scattershooting on the comment about the Senate.

Not to mention expanding SCOTUS.  Of course that would involve eliminating the filibuster so...

[royiv 9,045]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've been saying that for years.  The moderate effect of reapportioning the 435 seats based on state population shifts doesn't even remotely address the fact that the total US population is something like 2.5X what it was when the # representatives was fixed.

I was just scattershooting on the comment about the Senate.

Totally get what you're saying about the Senate, but as you pointed out it would be difficult to create additional states without giving the rural even more power. If you carved NY and CA up, you would just be creating new rural states with senate seats. If you combined the Dakotas and then split TX into two states, say Texas and West Texas, then we might be onto something.

Edited June 29, 2022 by royiv

[Gap03 3,200]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

Totally get what you're saying about the Senate, but as you pointed out it would be difficult to create additional states without giving the rural even more power. If you carved NY and CA up, you would just be creating new rural states with senate seats. If you combined the Dakotas and then split TX into two states, say Texas and West Texas, then we might be onto something.

I think New York would be tough to do given the concentration of population in NYC, but you could probably split CA into 3 states (Northern Cal, Central Cal and Southern Cal), with the LA metro area split partially between Central and Southern Cal.  I'm sure the gerrymandering experts could manage that without it even looking sketchy.

[Js1 84,114]

46 minutes ago, immamac said:

How hard is it going to be to reverse the damage done in the summer of 2022, if things go the way of the people in these midterms and in 2024. Is it a decade+ or does shit start moving pretty fast? 

My exit plan is starting to move pretty fast.  This place fucking sucks.  Idc if it's abandoning America to the fascists, fuck this fucking dumpster fire of a country. 

[Gap03 3,200]

2 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I think New York would be tough to do given the concentration of population in NYC, but you could probably split CA into 3 states (Northern Cal, Central Cal and Southern Cal), with the LA metro area split partially between Central and Southern Cal.  I'm sure the gerrymandering experts could manage that without it even looking sketchy.

Shit - just googled it to see if there was any discussion of this, and of course there is.  Check this shit out:

Cal 3 - Wikipedia 

Quote

Cal 3 was a proposal to split the U.S. state of California into three states. It was launched in August 2017 by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who led the effort to have it originally qualify on the November 2018 state ballot as Proposition 9, officially the Division of California into Three States initiative.^[1] Proponents of the proposal argued that dividing California into three states would provide fairer and more responsive governance for large regions outside of California’s major cities.

 

2016 presidential election results in the proposed states

California (Cal)

Northern California (NorCal)

Southern California (SoCal)

Quote

Presidential vote

Proposed state	2012[22]
	Obama %	Romney %	Margin of victory
California (Cal)	66.9	30.5	+36.4
Northern California (NorCal)	64.4	32.4	+32.0
Southern California (SoCal)	49.1	48.4	+0.6
Proposed state	2016[22]
	Clinton %	Trump %	Margin of victory
California (Cal)	68.9	24.8	+44.0
Northern California (NorCal)	64.4	27.7	+36.7
Southern California (SoCal)	51.5	41.8	+9.7

I like my plan of giving So Cal a bit of LA as an extra buffer.  Interesting read here.

[NWBuck 8,535]

On 6/27/2022 at 11:23 PM, NWBuck said:

I've been following this case since it started (even teaching about it in graduate Education classes)... the "retaliate against players who didn't join him" is news to me. It wasn't covered in any of the newspapers or other stories written about it (and we're not exactly conservative friendly here in Seattle), it didn't show up in any of the previous court case details that I can recall. Can someone point me to something substantive? 

The court decision is still wrong- case that was open and shut all across the nation, even was denied a SCOTUS hearing on one other occasion. When this first came to light, the district offered him a place to pray in private (accommodating his freedom of religion) and even told him he could pray on the field after everyone had left (and he was heading home) if he wished. He initially accepted the offer of privacy until a conservative legal group stepped in and offered to represent him.

This may have been covered as well- but a number of community members were also "concerned" when a group of Satanists showed up at the game to support him (and, therefore, their right to be on the field after games as well).

Like I said- the decision was a bad one.

For anyone interested in information a bit closer to the situation, today's Seattle Times has a good story/editorial: The myth at the heart of the praying Bremerton coach case

The praying Bremerton coach won a great victory in the U.S. Supreme Court this week. But to get that win, he lost his way.

The high court ruled Monday that former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy was entitled to offer a “short, private, personal prayer” on the field after games and that the school district had discriminated against him when it tried to restrict him.

This ruling sounds reasonable, as who is against short, private, personal prayer? The problem is that the only part of the phrase “short, private, personal prayer” that is accurate to what was going on in Bremerton in the fall of 2015 is “prayer.”

We know this because it all played out here. One piece of evidence in the court record was a Seattle Times article from Oct. 15, 2015.

Spoiler

It was an account of a news conference Kennedy gave before the team’s big homecoming game against Centralia. “Football coach vows to pray” was the print headline. It describes — in Kennedy’s own words — how he was inspired to start holding midfield prayers with students after he saw an evangelical Christian movie called “Facing the Giants,” in which a losing team finds God and goes on to win the state championship.

Kennedy “has held his postgame ritual at midfield after each game for a motivational talk and prayer ever since,” the story recounted. By doing so, Kennedy said he is “helping these kids be better people.”

But school employees simply cannot lead prayers with students to try to make them better people, no matter how well-intended the effort. In private school, OK, but not in a public school where the students may be Jewish, Muslim, atheist or who knows. It’s not a close call that this breaks through the wall separating church and state, and it’s why the school district asked him to stop.

So to get around this problem, Kennedy, his lawyers and, ultimately, six U.S. Supreme Court justices made up an alternate storyline.

In this new telling, students were nowhere around and had nothing to do with Kennedy’s praying. He was a lone and silent sentinel, joined only by his convictions. As Justice Neil Gorsuch preposterously wrote, “He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

“This is just me thanking God for 15 seconds after a football game,” Kennedy told The Seattle Times on Monday, after the ruling.

That may have been true at times, but Kennedy himself announced at that news conference in 2015 that it was much more than that. He not only prayed with students, but was doing it to help the kids. That was two days before the game that became the central event of the Supreme Court case.

Here’s how a former player at Bremerton High School described that homecoming game in a brief to the court:

“To this day, I don’t remember who we played or if we even won. … All I remember is the aftermath of that game” in which there were “over 500 people storm[ing] the football field … from both sides, hopping the fences and rushing to the field to be close to Kennedy before he started his prayer.”

The short, private, personal prayer.

There’s more — the lawyers and Kennedy keep saying he was “fired for praying,” though he was not fired, he never applied for the next season. It all caused a judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Milan Smith, to call out the whole case last year as built on a “deceitful narrative.”

“The facts in the record utterly belie [Kennedy’s] contention that the prayer was personal and private,” Smith wrote. Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, later dubbed what the coach was doing as “‘everybody watch me pray’ staged public prayers (that spawned this multi-year litigation).”

“I hope as this case proceeds that the truth of what actually happened will prevail,” Smith wrote.

It did not. The mythmaking story of a persecuted lone believer is what prevailed.

Why does any of this matter now?

Well you’d hope facts matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. This particular court of “originalists” is increasingly looking to historical tradition, back to the days of the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written, to determine modern-day rights. That’s what they did in the recent gun case, and the abortion case that threw out Roe v. Wade.

If they’re going to parse 250-year-old histories, it’s worrisome how much trouble they had getting a seven-year-old story straight.

This seems by design. Myth is more potent than fact. The dissenting judges noted that this case was not even about public employees being allowed to give short, private prayers. Instead, some precedents that have long formed the backstop for the separation of church and state were tossed aside in making this ruling.

So the case used a gauzy history to achieve a concrete goal — to try to push Christianity into the public schools. Not in an educational role but a proselytizing one.

The coach, for his part, now says he just wants his 15 seconds.

The dishonesty at the heart of this case though suggests the movement that brought it — and the justices that bought it — are hardly going to be content to stop at that.

 

[immamac 41,790]

I guess I'm failing to understand why 2 or more justices can't be impeached, and replaced and as part of that impeachment the court revisits these votes and basically says yeah we were fucked by criminals into doing this and just undo it.

If the answer is we are fucked because these lifers are just going to fucking sit at the bench and rule forever, then we need to just burn down the government and start over because a bunch of fucking catholic insane people running the country is stupid.

[Brisketexan 103,738]

53 minutes ago, royiv said:

Decades unless a bunch of conservative justices die or resign in the next few years. The Trump appointees have completely delegitimized the Court. The will of the people no longer matters. The only way to fix it is to expand the court, but there's no way to do that with a President who says he doesn't support it and a Senate that won't get rid of the filibuster.

It's much bigger than the bolded, because, if a court is to be intellectually honest, it must sometimes rule in a way that is NOT consistent with the current "will of the people."  That's a truth.  If public sentiment is so strongly against a particular outcome, the court should be thoughtful and wary of issuing a contrary outcome but ultimately, if the law so requires, that is what it must do.

What's worse here is that this court is utterly detached from that most important guidepost -- what the law so requires.  Today's decision discards well over a century of established law and practices.  It is, again, pure Calvinball.

The court is supposed to follow the law and apply precedent.  If it just does what it wants because that's what the majority wants, that is Calvinball.  If it just does what it wants contrary to what the majority wants, that's Republic-killing Calvinball.

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This won't get much coverage given all the other more politically salient cases, but this is a truly outrageous decision with no basis in law. Just pure "fuck Native Americans" all the way down.

Correct.  Pure, Republic-killing Calvinball.

[David Dennison 17,825]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

I guess I'm failing to understand why 2 or more justices can't be impeached, and replaced and as part of that impeachment the court revisits these votes and basically says yeah we were fucked by criminals into doing this and just undo it.

If the answer is we are fucked because these lifers are just going to fucking sit at the bench and rule forever, then we need to just burn down the government and start over because a bunch of fucking catholic insane people running the country is stupid.

Removal requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

[jimmyjazz 45,220]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's much bigger than the bolded, because, if a court is to be intellectually honest, it must sometimes rule in a way that is NOT consistent with the current "will of the people."  That's a truth.  If public sentiment is so strongly against a particular outcome, the court should be thoughtful and wary of issuing a contrary outcome but ultimately, if the law so requires, that is what it must do.

What's worse here is that this court is utterly detached from that most important guidepost -- what the law so requires.  Today's decision discards well over a century of established law and practices.  It is, again, pure Calvinball.

The court is supposed to follow the law and apply precedent.  If it just does what it wants because that's what the majority wants, that is Calvinball. 

I could not agree more.  "The will of the people" is as bad or worse than sticking to the intentions of the founding fathers, which was (my words) a fair and just republic.  "Tyranny of the majority" means something.  Now we're just at "tyranny".

[elfenix 34,143]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

I guess I'm failing to understand why 2 or more justices can't be impeached, and replaced and as part of that impeachment the court revisits these votes and basically says yeah we were fucked by criminals into doing this and just undo it.

If the answer is we are fucked because these lifers are just going to fucking sit at the bench and rule forever, then we need to just burn down the government and start over because a bunch of fucking catholic insane people running the country is stupid.

2/3 vote in the senate and even if that weren't an immediately apparent problem when the republicans wouldn't vote for ice cream during recess, there's certainly enough normies that would wonder what high crimes or misdemeanors were committed by the justices themselves.  "why does it matter that they were appointed by someone who committed insurrection?"