Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

SCOTUS rulings and news


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 29 June 2017 - 02:35 AM

^ CNN retracts a story and fires three reporters for not following their proper journalistic practices. And therefore because they exercised journalistic corporate responsibility you think everything they print or broadcast is BS? Personally, I don't care much for CNN. I don't take much issue with their story's accuracy, for the most part. Yeah, they might fudge some detail, exaggerate, or misspeak on occasion. Or have a few corner cutting reporters looking to land a scoop without following strict ethical protocols. But I check my incoming information from a variety of sources, not just one outlet. I look for consensus and agreement on detail and for how many confirming sources were sought in writing a news story or article. What I don't care for about CNN is their mercenary approach to trying to affect a balance of viewpoint by hiring and having as "commentators" absolute shills for 45, his campaign surrogates who go on and lie through their teeth in their master's image. CNN thus tries to pass off this blatant propaganda as false equivalence to actually knowledgable pundits and elected officials appearing and representing reason and sanity. So I'm no real fan of CNN.

Meanwhile, your unhinged, lying, full blown narcissist president has fake flattering Time Magazine covers of himself made up in 2009 and blown up and hung on the walls in 5 of his his golf course clubhouses. He promises during the campaign that Medicaid will be untouched and everyone will have great health care much cheaper but supports and raves about GOP health care legislation that cuts 880 BILLION dollars from Medicaid for the poor, seniors, and sick children...and throws 22 million Americans off their health care. He lies like it was second nature, a reflex like breathing. But you believe HIM?

And for the last time, the three Justices who dissented on 45's Muslim ban EO dissented with the majority decision (6 other Justices) to allow a limited lifting of the appellate court stay on the EO, while mandating exemption and protection for certain classes of immigrants from the affected countries. These six Justices disagreed with the other three Justices that the Muslim ban stay by the appellate courts should not be overturned outright, but deliberated more fully at a later date. So there was no 9-0 consensus as evidently you and 45 are the only ones who advocate that particular judicial theory.

Edited by yadda yadda, 29 June 2017 - 03:25 AM.


#22 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 07:30 PM

I know this isn't quite SCOTUS news but I didn't want to start a new thread :)

WaPo: The one area where Trump has been wildly successful.

Quote

Progressives breathed a sigh of relief recently when Justice Anthony M. Kennedy decided to remain on the Supreme Court for presumably at least one more year. But … a massive transformation is underway in how our fundamental rights are defined by the federal judiciary…. President Trump … is proving wildly successful in one respect: naming youthful conservative nominees to the federal bench in record-setting numbers.
….
Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year.
​….
Moreover, Trump’s picks are astoundingly young. Obama’s early Court of Appeals nominees averaged age 55; Trump’s nine picks average 48.
​….
How conservative are Trump’s picks? Dubbed “polemicists in robes” in a headline on a piece by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, Trump’s nominees are strikingly . . . Trumpian. One Trump nominee blogged that Kennedy was a “judicial prostitute” for trying to find a middle ground on the court, and said that he “strongly disagree[d]” with the court’s decision striking down prosecution of gay people under sodomy laws. Another equated the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, upholding a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, to the court’s 19th-century Dred Scott finding that black people could not be U.S. citizens. Another advocated an Alabama law that denied counsel to death-row inmates.
….
But given Trump’s unprecedented pace, in just one more year, one-eighth of all cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge he appointed.
​….
​With the abolition of the filibuster …. the reality is that most of Trump’s rapid-fire, right-wing, youthful lower-court nominations are poised to make it to the bench.  
….
And finally, nothing is more important than taking back the Senate in 2018. The only thing that can stop the Trump train of judicial transformation is a Senate Judiciary Committee in Democratic hands. Absent that, the next two generations of Americans will live under laws interpreted by hundreds of judges picked by the president with the greatest disdain for the rule of law in our history.

Edited by sierraleone, 21 July 2017 - 05:02 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#23 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 08:46 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 20 July 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

I know this isn't quite SCOTUS news but I didn't want to start a new thread :)

WaPo: The one area where Trump has been wildly successful.

Quote

Progressives breathed a sigh of relief recently when Justice Anthony M. Kennedy decided to remain on the Supreme Court for presumably at least one more year. But … a massive transformation is underway in how our fundamental rights are defined by the federal judiciary…. President Trump … is proving wildly successful in one respect: naming youthful conservative nominees to the federal bench in record-setting numbers.
….
Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year.
​….
Moreover, Trump’s picks are astoundingly young. Obama’s early Court of Appeals nominees averaged age 55; Trump’s nine picks average 48.
​….
How conservative are Trump’s picks? Dubbed “polemicists in robes” in a headline on a piece by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, Trump’s nominees are strikingly . . . Trumpian. One Trump nominee blogged that Kennedy was a “judicial prostitute” for trying to find a middle ground on the court, and said that he “strongly disagree[d]” with the court’s decision striking down prosecution of gay people under sodomy laws. Another equated the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, upholding a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, to the court’s 19th-century Dred Scott finding that black people could not be U.S. citizens. Another advocated an Alabama law that denied counsel to death-row inmates.
….
But given Trump’s unprecedented pace, in just one more year, one-eighth of all cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge he appointed.
​….
​With the abolition of the filibuster …. the reality is that most of Trump’s rapid-fire, right-wing, youthful lower-court nominations are poised to make it to the bench.  
….
And finally, nothing is more important than taking back the Senate in 2018. The only thing that can stop the Trump train of judicial transformation is a Senate Judiciary Committee in Democratic hands. Absent that, the next two generations of Americans will live under laws interpreted by hundreds of judges picked by the president with the greatest disdain for the rule of law in our history.


We survived, by the grace of God somehow, under Obama's liberal activist Judges. Activist Judges who, currently, seem to think that the courts decide USA foreign policy. Activist Judges who, right now, think they ARE the President. So I'm fairly sure we'll survive President Trump's conservative appointments to the federal bench.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#24 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,804 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:55 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 23 July 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:


We survived, by the grace of God somehow, under Obama's liberal activist Judges. Activist Judges who, currently, seem to think that the courts decide USA foreign policy. Activist Judges who, right now, think they ARE the President. So I'm fairly sure we'll survive President Trump's conservative appointments to the federal bench.

Another false equivalency.  You act as if because you survived Obama, it is the same as the rest of us surviving #45.  It isn't by a long shot.  And the reason it isn't the same has to do with policy objectives.  Progressives seek to expand, while conservatives seek to constrict.

You can dream on that your survival means we'll all survive under #45, but you're living in a fool's paradise.  Policy matters.  It isn't something one side or the other survives.  Policy determines the world we live in.

You're part of the white, privileged male population that thinks we won't be hurt as citizens because that's just not possible in America.  You think that because you can't imagine anyone or anything that could actually undermine the power of America.  America, like your white privilege, is in your opinion, immutable and unassailable.  It simply is, what it is, and no one would or could tear it down.

You should read more history.  That's what the Roman's thought, the Greeks, The Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and every warlord that ever walked the planet.  Our country could be gone in the wink of an eye, and primarily because people like you do not know how to tell the difference between a difference in policy positions generic to our political parties, AND an real existential threat to our very Republic.

Wake up.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#25 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 08:24 PM

LOTS, we've talked about the use of the word survival while discussing the risks of rights rolling-back under Trump and 'oppression under Obama' before….

View Postsierraleone, on 11 February 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 11 February 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 11 February 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

the vindictive condemnation and delegitimization of anyone who opposes or disagrees.

That's how Conservatives felt under Obama. We survived 8 years of that, I'm sure you'll survive at least 4 (hopefully 8) years of Trump.

You mean some conservatives spent 8 years feeling oppressed, some of them because they couldn't oppress and bully other people any more.
Some of those people, that the so-call conservatives oppressed and bullied, felt for the first time society and culture, and even the government at times too, was unequivocally treating them as actual people, actual equal citizens, not like second or third class citizens.
Of course, they survived hate and oppression throughout history (though not all of them did…). Some people aim for more than survival.

Edited by sierraleone, 23 July 2017 - 08:28 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#26 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,975 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 12:18 AM

SCROTUM what? What did I miss?
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#27 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 19 August 2018 - 10:32 AM

Re-bumping for the Kavanaugh hearings.

Here is Rachel Maddow a couple days ago showing a video clip from 2 years ago, June 2nd 2016, in which Kavanaugh gave a speech in honour of the late Justice Scalia.

In his remarks he brought up Scalia's dissent in two historical landmark cases, Planned Parenthood v Casey (about abortion rights, the one that basically said that government could regulate, as long as the regulation did not cause undue burden to women seeking abortions), & Obergefell v Hodges (which recognized, nationwide, the right of same-sex couples to get married).

He pretty strongly hints he agrees with Scalia's dissent, that the court was wholesale "making new rights" that were not in the constitution, and that the courts should not give deference to their own previous opinions, but give entire deference to the other branches of government (for rights not literally spelled out in the constitution I gather).



ETA: Found a transcript of a couple parts:

Quote

a fierce guarantor of individual rights articulated in the Constitution, and he was never afraid to use his judicial role to upend even seemingly settled practices that infringed on those rights. No deference [to legislators at any level] there.
...
[Courts] have no legitimate role, Justice Scalia would say, in creating new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. On those issues he believed in complete deference to the political branches and the states. Deference not for the sake of deference, but deference because the Constitution gave the Court no legitimate role in the case. Think about his dissents in Casey on abortion, and Obergefell on same-sex marriage, his opinions on the constitutionality of the death penalty in response to the abolitionist positions articulated by some of his fellow justices over the years. For Justice Scalia, it was not the Court's job to improve on or update the Constitution to create new rights.

And people wonder why the women's Equal Rights Amendment is necessary when there is the 14th amendment that supposedly provides equal protection.... Um, there were SCOTUS opinions that claimed that the 14th amendment equal protections clause was only about black men, it was not about women, for about a century, until 1971.

Such cases would be: Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), Minor V. Happersett (1874), Cronin v. Adams (1904), Muller v. Oregon (1908), Radice v. New York (1924), Hoyt v. Florida (1961)

Reed v Reed (1971) is the first time SCOTUS made an opinion that the 14th amendment prohibited the denial of equal protection to women. And Craig v. Boren (1976) set the standard of intermediate scrutiny for which to evaluate these equal protection claims - (1) must serve important governmental objectives and (2) must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.

Edited by sierraleone, 19 August 2018 - 11:28 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#28 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 06:15 PM

*shudders*

I just learned of an abortion case in 2007 where Kavanaugh ruled against women who brought a case to court because they were *forced* to have an abortion. This came about because people who had medical-power-of-attorney over a couple disabled women.

Some may get uncomfortable thinking about the disabled people having sex and their reproductive rights, and try to dismiss it. But considering the history of eugenics in the U.S. and Canada (and elsehwere) and forcible sterilization of people deemed to be less than desirable, it should not be brushed off.

Others may point to this ruling of his to go "well, this shows he isn't a rabid pro-life extremist, this pretty much proves he isn't a sure thing to overturn Roe v Wade." Well, I disagree. Two reasons:
1) This demonstrates rather well what the abortion debate has always been about. Personal autonomy. Control. Who gets to make the decision over the body and reproductive choices of women.
2) The reasoning he used in this case echos a speech he gave before when he was quoting or paraphrasing the dissent in Roe v. Wade. Seriously.

Here is a Salon article on it:

Quote

One woman had an elective eye surgery and two had abortions, all chosen for them without any consideration of their wishes. The women argued that they had a right to have their wishes considered, but Kavanaugh ruled against them.

“It’s startling to see a judge say that the expressed wishes of people with disabilities are wholly irrelevant," Jennifer Mathis, the deputy legal director the Bazelon Center of Mental Health Law, explained.
...
...But Mathis said that even in states that have the fewest autonomy rights for people with certain disabilities, "most courts consider the person’s wishes," even if they may ultimately rule against them. Kavanaugh, however, "just rejected the notion that there was any reason at all" to ask the women in that case what they wanted.
...
In his decision, Kavanaugh wrote that the right to be involved in their own medical decisions was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and that "neither liberty nor justice" were imperiled by denying the women the right.

This is "very consistent" with what Kavanaugh has said elsewhere, said Amy Myrick, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Indeed, Kavanaugh used nearly the same language to denounce Roe v. Wade, calling that decision a "judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition." Beneath the legalese, the point is largely to argue that the right to bodily autonomy established through a series of court decisions, including Roe, were illegitimate and not actually justified by the wording of the U.S. Constitution.

Edited by sierraleone, 21 August 2018 - 06:35 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#29 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 03:53 PM

There is a person who makes the SCOTUS justice nomination hearings riveting tweet by tweet.

A journalist who focuses on law/justice her name is Jessica Mason Pieklo and her twitter handle is @Hegemommy

Yesterday was just speeches, no questions of the nominee.  I learned a lot following her yesterday and today.

Here is the start of her thread today:
https://twitter.com/...331990951809025

Most (all? :D ) of the highlights IMO:

>> Second shout to Brown v Board of Education. Kavanaugh also says he's tried to always be a collegial judge. Reminder: not being an *a$$h*le shouldn't be the floor for being a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court

>> Kavanaugh says he's always looking for how to apply precedent to the cases before him. Again, I suggest y'all read his opinions in Garza v Hargan to see how he "applies" precedent like PP v. Casey

>> Feinstein asks Kavanaugh if US v. Nixon was wrongly decided Kavanaugh doesn't give a yes or no answer. Says its one of the greatest moments in SCOTUS history
>> Feinstein presses again: was it rightly decided? Kavanaugh stammers: I've said yes, then walks that back by explaining it is tied to the specific regulations and facts of the case So.... not good precedent Kavanaugh?

>> So this isn't a trial, but there are a lot of trial tactics happening here. Hatch is rehabilitating the witness in Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh insists he told the truth in his previous hearing

>> Kavanaugh says he's proud of his record hiring women clerks Hatch metaphorically slaps Kavanaugh on the back for this. Then he pivots to Kozinski who left the 9th circuit because of harassment and abuse allegations. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski
>> Kavanaugh says women need better reporting tools on workplace harassment. You know what also works? Class action lawsuits and not forcing these claims into mandatory arbitration

>> Hatch now wants to talk about the Chevron doctrine. This is a line of precedent that directs the federal courts to defer to federal agency interpretation of the law if the law is ambiguous. Conservatives are coming for Chevron. It might not survive this next SCOTUS term
>> Hatch has introduced legislation to undo Chevron FWIW Kavanaugh says this is an issue of "liberty"

>> Now Leahy is up. Starts directly with whether or not Kavanaugh lied to him the first time around It's already a tense exchange

>> It is pretty apparent based on Leahy's questions that Kavanaugh was in possession of stolen emails that he used to shepherd Bush judicial nominees so that's something
>> Kavanaugh insists this is just how judicial nominations proceed
>> The tone of this exchange is very moderated but this is high Senate drama. Leahy is fully making the case for Kavanaugh as a liar and a thief
>> This is a super fine line Leahy is walking here because the penalty for breaking confidentiality can be expulsion from the Senate
>> Grassley now gavels Leahy out of time. Leahy objects and Grassley gives him another minute Leahy asks Kavanaugh if Trump has the absolute power to pardon himself Kavanaugh says dunno never thought about it
>> Leahy asks if the president has the power to pardon someone in exchange for a promise that person won't testify again them Kavanaugh refuses to answer
>> Leahy repeats his question: While in the White House did you ever work with John Yoo on warantless surveillance Kavanaugh says "after 9-11 it was all hands on deck" That's a yes folks
>> Kavanaugh is a visibly different witness after that exchange. Leahy shook him.

>> The point Graham is making is that presidents appoint judges who share their philosophy. He's right. He's also confirming Kavanaugh is the fifth vote to kill/gut Roe and upend most the New Deal
>> Graham using his time to subtweet the "undecided" Senate voters to say they need to suck it up and vote yes

>> Graham asks the dumbest question yet which is "can you and four other judges just decide to overturn Roe v Wade" The point he's making is that there needs to be litigation in the pipeline. Update: There are at least 13 cases right now in that pipeline!
>> I take that back. Graham just asked Kavanaugh if he'd listen to both sides when hearing a challenge to Roe. That's the dumbest question yet.

>> Durbin pivots to Kavanaugh's dissent in Garza v. Hargan and Kavanaugh's use of "abortion on demand" Durbin laying out all the legal hurdles the undocumented minor in Garza cleared before asking Kavanaugh why he'd block that legal process
>> Do you believe this is "abortion on demand" Durbin asks directly. Kavanaugh again offers a narrative answer instead of yes or no
>> Kavanaugh gives a long answer about how because she's a minor it's different Durbin says yes and this patients already had a lawful judicial bypass so at this point it's not This is a smart line of questioning to unpack Kavanaugh in Garza

>> In all this droning on Kavanaugh says its not the court's job to re-write the constitution which is a big old hello to conservatives who don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy

>> Kavanaugh takes the courageous position and says that Plessy was wrongly decided.
(sierra: SNARK :D love it. Plessy was the separate but equal decision that upheld segregation)

>> This anti-trust line of questioning is really dry but super important in highlighting just how far to the right Kavanaugh is on issues of corporate power broadly.

>> Kavanaugh says the Court in Brown made the right call even though they knew they would face public backlash Is this signaling he DNGAF about public outcry over a Roe reversal?

>> Generally speaking, Kavanaugh is pro-dark money

>> Now Sen. Whitehouse is asking about the Pacific Legal Foundation [and by proxy other right wing litigation mills like Alliance Defending Freedom]
>> Whitehouse is explaining how these litigation mills go out and plaintiff shop and intentionally *lose* cases so they can appeal and run up to a conservative SCOTUS Ex A: Alito did this with what would ultimately become the union busting Janus case
>> Kavanaugh says he's not familiar with this phenomenon (shrugging emoji)
>> Sen. Whitehouse connecting all the dots on the conservative corporate capture of the federal judiciary

>> Klobuchar moves to Kavanaugh's dissent that would have found the CFPB unconstitutional That's Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
>> Klobuchar asks Kavanaugh if he thinks other independent agencies are constitutionally suspect Kavanaugh says well we have precedent and I respect that
>> Kavanaugh is hedging here but an important point is that he would like to have these agency positions removable at will [rather than for cause] IE he wants to make these agencies explicitly partisan

>> Klobuchar pivots to Net Neutrality. Spoiler: Kavanaugh is against it

>> Klobuchar is doing a very good job of making the case that Kavanaugh is broadly anti-agency. That means he's anti-precedent here too fwiw

>> Now Klobuchar asks Kavanaugh about the constitutionality of campaign contributions. Kavanaugh trying to paint himself as moderate on this issue. Klobuchar notes that his opinion left open the possibility of unlimited foreign contributions on *issues* *cough NRA RUSSIA cough*

>> Next topic: anti-trust SCOTUS has made it harder to enforce anti-trust laws. This comes at a time of industry consolidation. Klobuchar lists the Kavanaugh cases that would make this problem worse
>> Basically under Kavanaugh's legal thinking mergers would be easier ie markets would be made less competitive Did you ever study the Guilded Age? The Robber Barons? That's what we're talking about here
>> This anti-trust line of questioning is really dry but super important in highlighting just how far to the right Kavanaugh is on issues of corporate power broadly.

>> Cruz says Kavanaugh voted with Garland 93% of the time Yeah but that 7%? Cases like Garza v Hargan which brings us back to the "overheated rhetoric" of the protesters and Senate Democrats amirite
>> How would you describe a judicial activist, Cruz asks Kavanaugh says that's someone who lets their personal political preference dictate their decisions

>> Again I am re-upping my request for a protester to figure out how to show up in Beto O'Rourke cosplay and skateboard past Kavanaugh when Cruz questions him
(sierra: more lovely snark)

>> One important aspect of federalism conservatives don't talk about is the idea that your constitutional rights don't depend on what state you happen to reside. So... voting rights. Abortion. Just spitballing here but these seem like important federalism questions

>> oooooh substantive due process! I love substantive due process! Too bad SCOTUS has largely rendered substantive due process meaningless (shrugging emoji)
>> Substantive due process would put teeth into the promises of non-discrimination in public education, for example. Procedural due process means we all get the same process/treatment from the government. Substantive tells us what those rights look like actualized in policy

>> Coons holding tight and pressing Kavanaugh on whether or not he thinks the president can fire the special counsel. Kavanaugh is uncomfortable but still maintaining a filibuster
>> Coons wants to know if the prosecutor is fireable at will or for cause Remember in earlier testimony about Kavanaugh's dissent in the CFPB case? The one that would make agency heads fireable at will .... We can extrapolate from there
>> Coons pressing Kavanaugh on precedent and the difference between Kavanaugh saying something is 'settled' versus 'rightly decided' Remember there are Trump nominees not willing to say Brown v Board of Ed. was rightly decided. Kavanaugh has at least distinguished himself here
>> Coons has spent the last 30 minutes showing that Kavanaugh is widely in favor of shielding the executive from investigations and prosecutions

>> Blumenthal asks Kavanaugh if while in the White House he promoted the belief that Roe is not settled law among legal scholars Kavanaugh basically confirms this
>> Kavanaugh going to Casey and the fact that it affirmed Roe but also upheld Pennsylvania abortion restrictions. This is a guarantee he'll uphold any restriction under Casey and call it upholding precedent

>> Blumenthal pivots to the lawsuit challenging the pre-existing conditions ban in the ACA launched by conservative states [arguments next week good god it never stops!] Can the president refuse to enforce the ACA even though the SCOTUS has upheld the statute he asks?
>> Kavanaugh doesn't answer directly vol 384756>

>> So Blumenthal's point is that by refusing to regulate assault weapons Congress has de-facto given those weapons Second Amendment protections which is not very originalist when you think about it>>

>> Flake asks Kavanaugh who his judicial heroes are My mom, Kavanaugh says Justice Kennedy as a model of independence
>> Also Justice Scalia Rehnquist and Jackson too no surprises here folks
>> Also cites Thurgood Marshall and the work he did to overturn Plessy v Ferguson Again, this is a common anti-choice whistle on Roe too

>> Hirono has had an absolutely stunning series of questions taking Kavanaugh to task for an op-ed he wrote suggesting native Hawaiians aren't really indigenous

>> Booker takes a third tactic to try and get Kavanaugh to say if he sees affirmative action [more or less that's what this line of questioning in about] as racial entitlements
>> Booker asks Kavanaugh if the SCOTUS cases upholding race-conscious policies are rightly decided Kavanaugh won't answer
>> Booker pushing Kavanaugh on voter ID laws and his opinion that would have signed off on South Carolina's Voter ID law despite real evidence of the law's discriminator purpose and effect

>> Senator Harris up and asks immediately if Kavanaugh has discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone Kavanaugh says well it's in the news Harris drills down what about with anyone from Trump's lawyer's law firm? Kavanaugh gets real nervous and asks if she has something
>> Harris asks a yes or no question and Kavanaugh wants to know if she's referencing a specific person Harris has an email I'm sure of it
>> I think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us, Harris says Lee jumps in to raise an objection Harris is here for it

>>> Asks Kavanaugh if he, like Trump, thinks there was "blame on both sides" wrt Charlottesville. Kavanaugh doesn't answer

>> Harris asks Kavanugh if he thinks the contraception privacy were correctly decided? Kavanaugh doesn't answer
>> The sexual privacy cases are key in recognizing LGBTQ rights Kavanaugh still won't say they are correctly decided
>> Harris tells Kavanaugh that even Alito said those cases were correctly decided Kavanaugh said he agrees with Alito but won't actually say the words "they were correctly decided"

>> Kavanaugh says he can't name any Harris asks Kavanaugh as a factual matter whether 5 SCOTUS justices can overturn precedent. Kavanaugh cites Brown v Board so yes

Edited by sierraleone, 06 September 2018 - 04:28 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#30 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 06 September 2018 - 04:20 PM

Woo hoo, I think this day of hearings was hotter than yesterday!
(Though I still think Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed....)
I won't quote Jessica Mason this time, here is the first tweet of her thread:

https://twitter.com/...693479986520064

Edited by sierraleone, 06 September 2018 - 04:21 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#31 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 11 September 2018 - 05:19 PM

The GOP is going to try to pack the courts....

They already have been able to prevent Obama from filling empty justice seats at all levels, and have filled many of those. Now the House Judiciary has a federal courts bill to introduce Thu which has 52 new district judges, real time audio of all appeal courts and SCOTUS, and SCOTUS justices must explain recusals on the website...

https://judiciary.ho.../09/HR-6755.pdf

Edited by sierraleone, 11 September 2018 - 05:20 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#32 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 18 September 2018 - 05:49 AM

Here's a little reworking of the lyrics of a Willie Nelson classic I threw together after observing the Kavanaugh debacle unfolding today.

Judge Kavanaugh's Supreme Courtin' Ballad

apologies to Willie,


To all the girls I've groped before
my buddy on watch, at the door
the music turned up loud
no muffled cries allowed
for all the girls I've groped before

To all the girls I've pinned to beds
trying to tear their clothes to shreds
fumbling while stumbling drunk
my memory lapsed in chunks
to all the girls I've pinned to beds.

To all the girls their youth destroyed
my mea culpas I must hide
by vehement denials
so I can rule in trials
where precedent of Roe's made void

To the man who put me within reach
of SCOTUS, sir, you are a peach
as long as I am here
then never should you fear
Grand Juries or the word impeach!




#33 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 24 September 2018 - 04:52 PM

Republicans really don't care about sexual assault do they? Rhetorical question I know. They only care about power.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#34 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,804 posts

Posted 26 September 2018 - 05:05 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 24 September 2018 - 04:52 PM, said:

Republicans really don't care about sexual assault do they? Rhetorical question I know. They only care about power.

I've been so angry about this, for so many years. I could never figure out why so many men hold this POV. That they don't believe women accusers, and don't care about sexual assault.

I've finally come to a conclusion. Many men don't think that sexual assault is a crime at all. They are pissed that uppity women can say, "He raped me", and a man's life can be ruined just because he in fact raped a woman. Pissed, because some woman can ruin a man's life with something that just doesn't matter at all.

THIS is the problem.

They don't see the crime, nor do they want to. They see all of this "Me too" as some kind of political correctness that is ruining the lives of "good" men. They are pissed with women for even bringing it up as a matter of fact. Think about that for a minute. They don't see sexual assault as a crime. We're not victims, we're a perk of white manhood.

You know it wasn't too long ago that men saw women as property. And, let's not forget that black men constitutionally had the vote before women. That alone should tell you a lot about the POV of white males in power. We don't matter. Our thoughts, our bodies, and our emotions, in fact when it comes to sexual assault we're less than human. We're prey.

So, no, they don't care about sexual assault, and they are pissed they have to pretend to care. All #45 did was make it OK not to pretend anymore.

They see women the same as minorities.. in the wings waiting to steal all their power. The power that comes from being a white male in the US. Women are seen as enemies, and they hate that sexual assault is on the books as a crime. Imagine how they see it. "how dare a puny female suggest I've committed a crime, and should lose my power because of something every white man is entitled to do anytime he wants. How dare she".

All I can say is vote. Women need to vote, and make sure all the women they know vote too. Electing women, voting as a block, is the only way to get social justice, because otherwise, it'll always be a "he said/she said" when it comes to sexual assault. We'll continue to be marginalized, assaulted, and then called a lying whore if we don't take matters into our own hands.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#35 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 26 September 2018 - 06:17 PM

Well said.

Rapists don't think they're rapists

When people surveying and studying sex / sexual assault history among men, if they take the word rape away and just describe the behavior (something like pressuring or coercing a women into sex, forcibly holding a woman down to have sex) the numbers that report that they have raped before jumps from like (IIRC) ~8% to like ~20-30%. Those extra men basically deny rape, but will claim forcible sex.


Women as Property

For a long time many men have been encouraged to seen women as their property. It is easy to see when looking at coverture laws. Marital rape was an oxymoron in all states at one point, and only became criminalized in all states by 1993.

I remember once thinking about marital rape and thought:
"Why would a woman expect a stranger to respect her bodily autonomy and consent when her husband does not have to?"
Then I remembered. Women were property.
Just like I can abuse the objects in my possession that I own and that is not a crime, but if someone else abuses the same objects it is a crime....
Men did not want to abuse someone else's woman (or at least did not want to deal with the potential consequences of doing so)....
But their own woman was fair game (or at least society gave them few consequences for abusing them).


Rape Laws

Rape laws also used to (and sometimes still do) have particular definitions (this often also disadvantages male survivors).
Or the law require the woman to act in at certain way. Those are called "earnest resistance" laws. In Alabama for rape laws to apply the victim has to be either incapacitated, or the rapist has to use "forcible compulsion", which is defined as "physical force that overcomes earnest resistance or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury to himself or another person".

I don't think that most men in history had no understanding about consent, or the social-physiological-pyschological gender norms and power dynamics that made it unlikely for a women alone with a man to physically fight back her rapist. They just didn't care. Whether they can be "excused" due to cultural norms thinking a women's affirmative consent didn't matter, only her acquiesce, or whether it can not be excused doesn't change the point: most men were more or less okay with a set-up that meant that few women would have a way to bring their rapist to justice.


How survivors react during rape

Women don't fight back for many reasons. Typically they already know this person. And whether they do or don't, they already know (whether they have the language or not) that this person was willing to violate and transgress the most basic sacred right of their agency over their bodily autonomy... Why would they trust that that person who just violated that wouldn't go further and physically injure themselves or worse? And when you add onto that gender norms and the amount of value put on a woman's beauty and appearance.... Ugh, getting nauseous. (not that that is consciously going thru their head... But their physical safety certainly is). And sometimes acquiescing is the best survival strategy (thought not always, trust your gut. Reading an interesting book called "The Gift of Fear").

People often think the only reactions to humans in stressful or threatening situations is Fight or Flight. That is a very masculine-oriented model. Trust me. All life cares about is survival, if it has to put its ego aside to survive and spread its genes it will. There, IIRC, up to 6 responses to threats and stress now:

Fight
Flight
Freeze (aka tonic immobility. A common reaction for rape survivors)
Appease (aka Fawn)
Tend
Befriend


Rape as a peculiar crime

Rape is a peculiar (though not uncommon) crime. No other physical crime is "easily" confused something not criminal.

In other crimes if fraud is perpetrated.... It either involves a pretend victim who did the action that made them look like a victim (such as burning their own house down). Or it involves a pretend victim who recruited a pretend perpetrator (who of course vanishes and they hope can not be found), such as getting their house robbed, but all their goods at at their trusted co-conspirator. While false rape allegations are about as common as false accusations of other crimes (~8% IIRC) they aren't done to materially benefit the accuser, and definitely not done to materially benefit the accused. And the bigger problem is the mass numbers of unreported rape accusations (which would make that 8% much tinnier).


There is much said in these cases that play out in public opinion, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That is great for a court of law, where the government could take your rights away. However, to say that the accused is innocent until proven guilty means that the accuser is guilty.... of lying (if out of the courts), and of filing a false police report (if in the courts). Of course, one can try to withhold judgment on both sides.


I've also seen it argued that it is impossible to prove that a negative, i.e., that a rape did not happen, so the burden is on the survivor (or their prosecutor) to prove that it did. Actually, the survivor has to prove a negative.... That there was no consent.


As I said on twitter "I read about interviews with sex offenders. They think since victims do not typically experience much bodily harm that it's no big deal. Sexual assault makes your body a burglary/robbery crime-scene that you can't ever secure nor leave."

Edited by sierraleone, 26 September 2018 - 06:26 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#36 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 05:26 PM

Here is a News Week article "When Campus Rapists Don't Think They're Rapists"

They site a study of college age men.

Quote

Nearly one-third of college men admit they might rape a woman if they could get away with it, a new study on campus sexual assault claims. Of those men, however, far fewer will admit this if the word rape is actually used during the course of questioning.Approximately 32 percent of study participants said that they would have “intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse” if ‘‘nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences.’’ Yet only 13.6 percent admit to having “any intentions to rape a woman” under these same circumstances.
...
The researchers asked the study participants whether they endorsed forced sex and whether they endorsed rape, as well as a number of questions meant to gauge their levels of hostility and sexual callousness toward women. They found that those men willing to admit to intentions to rape harbored hostility—such as the belief that women are manipulative or deceitful—and had “angry and unfriendly” attitudes toward women.

Meanwhile, the men who admitted to an intention to rape only if it’s described as an “intention to use force” tended to have callous sexual attitudes, described in the study as viewpoints that “objectify women and expect men to exhibit sexual dominance.”
...
Edwards cautions that this research is preliminary, because the sample group is very small: 86 men participated in the study, but only 73 were analyzed due to missing data.

Edited by sierraleone, 28 September 2018 - 05:28 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#37 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 07:14 PM

A The Economist/YouGov poll asked "The survey asked, "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?"

55% of Republicans thought that it is not disqualifying.
27% of Republicans thought that it is disqualifying.
18% were unsure.

:yuk:

Edited by sierraleone, 28 September 2018 - 07:15 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#38 Virgil Vox

Virgil Vox
  • Moderator
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 07 October 2018 - 03:37 PM

So Kavanaugh was put on the Supreme Court. I'm not surprised but I am disgusted. Republicans proved that they care more about politics and winning than putting a qualified candidate on the Court. Even if they truly don't think Kavanaugh did anything wrong his conduct during the hearing was terrible. He also lied numerous times.

It is like John Oliver said on his show last week. Republicans don't really care about women. They only care about women when it comes to telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

I really hope Democrats gain control of the House and pick up some seats in the Senate. We need people in the government who won't just write Trump a blank check. I will be voting in the mid-terms, and while I don't think Texas will vote out Ted Cruz I am going to try.
"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."
--Jor-El


It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job: it's a depression when you lose yours.
-- Harry S. Truman

#39 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 4,025 posts

Posted 08 October 2018 - 03:11 PM

You know, some people ask why they didn't just replace Kavanaugh with a candidate that didn't have all the baggage.  The baggage was the point. It wasn't just a "we can get by with saying 'f*ck you decent people.'"  The GOP saw the opportunity to f*ck over decent people, and reveled in it.

#40 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 04:53 PM

With ~4 weeks to go to the midterm elections SCOTUS allows North Dakota to enforced its new voter ID laws in full. A federal judge had previous sought to relax in a lawsuit brought by the Native Americans in the state, upon whom it will have a greater impact (as they often don't have residential street addresses on their reservations).

https://talkingpoint...coming-midterms

Kavanaugh did not participate in this decision. I doubt he be against it.
So seems like voter ID laws will be held up readily.

Edited by sierraleone, 09 October 2018 - 04:55 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users