Supreme Court

[Coydog]

First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.

It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.

You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.

[daytripper]

First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.

It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.

You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.

I agree it was not unjust, but it certainly was racist and sexist.

[Coydog]

First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.

It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.

You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

For an action to be sexist or racist, it must be unjust. Given the historical context, Biden's SCOTUS nomination process clearly was not unjust.

I agree it was not unjust, but it certainly was racist and sexist.

I find that particular application of both terms extremely naive and overly simplistic. Kinda like claiming by some sort of blunt definition, the National Brotherhood of Skiers is racist and the Daughters of the American Revolution is sexist.

[boston_e]

Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.

https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html

[XtremeJibber2001]

Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.

https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html

He won’t and no one will do anything about it.

[boston_e]

Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.

https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html

He won’t and no one will do anything about it.

Of course not - but he is absolutely, without question, 100% corrupt.

[throbster]

Clearance Thomas should absolutely resign. What a criminal.

https://news.yahoo.com/ginni-thomas-urg ... 46379.html

He won’t and no one will do anything about it.

Of course not - but he is absolutely, without question, 100% corrupt.

Said without providing evidence, just conjecture. You are probably just another racist.

[easyrider16]

In other news, SCOTUS has decided to chip away at other Constitutional rights: today, it's your right to counsel.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wh ... 4d1ac377fd

I said it before and I'll say it again, a conservative Court means fewer rights for all of us.

[throbster]

Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested

[XtremeJibber2001]

Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested

Harden his home. One door in/out. Post an armed retired vet at the door.

[throbster]

Good job Schumer, Pelosi, and other violent lefties.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-arrested

Harden his home. One door in/out. Post an armed retired vet at the door.

Or Sleepy show some leadership, and condemn harassment of judges

[deadheadskier]

Laughable you actually care now. Certainly wasn't an issue for you when Trump wound up the Gravy Seals on January 6th.

[XtremeJibber2001]

SCOTUS be like:

Abortion should be left to the States to decide

Concealed carry of firearms cannot be left to the States to decide

[Mister Moose]

SCOTUS be like:

Abortion should be left to the States to decide

Concealed carry of firearms cannot be left to the States to decide

There's a reason for this.... if I could just put my finger on it....

One of the 2 majority opinions stated, “Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations,” wrote Roberts and Kavanaugh, who also noted that states can still make applicants for a firearm license “undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.” and ..."does not preclude state and local restrictions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill — or laws banning the carrying of firearms in “sensitive locations” like schools and government buildings."

This addresses some previous discussion on how any amendment is not absolute, and what the Court may consider in the future to be reasonable requirements. I think they left out fees for licenses, they aren't cheap, and create an economic barrier that shouldn't be there.

[easyrider16]

Moose correctly summarizes their view. They regard gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment explicitly, whereas abortion rights are not actually mentioned in the Constitution.

The issue I take with that view we discussed earlier - I don't think the 2nd amendment should be applied to the states, and I don't think it was meant to guarantee a personal right as it was written. I actually think abortion rights are a lot closer to the kinds of rights that were intended to be applied to the states through the 14th amendment, as it is in line with protecting your person from unreasonable searches and seizures and that sort of thing. It seems to me that there is a substantive due process right to do what you want with your body as far as medical procedures (to choose to undergo or refuse to undergo any procedure). To me that seems like a more sacred and important right than owning a firearm.

As far as the federalism argument, that always seems like a pretext to me. The only time a person seems to care about "state's rights" is when it gets them the outcome they want. But somehow that principle gets discarded whenever it doesn't favor the desired outcome.