Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Frankly I don’t even trust the ‘liberal’ justices to get this right. There is absolutely no reason for nine lawyers with no medical background to make a ruling that will impact the availability of life-saving medical treatments for one of our most vulnerable populations.
I’ve got an idea, let women do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, and stop being so creepy about the genders of our children. This shit is nobody’s business.
Of course there's a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.
The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That's the crime here. Even then, it's important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That's been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That's the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.
the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution
That is not the entire point of SCOTUS. That is not even in the constitution; it is a power the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.
Most SCOTUS decisions are judging appeals against federal law (including the constitution). Occasionally they rule a federal law unconstitutional, but not usually.
Right, which was in the early 1800s. For better or worse, it's been a major component of their role for 90% of the nation's history. You're right though, I erred in using "entire point".
The problem comes in when this is exactly what the Republican Party has planned to exploit. They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them. They also enacted project redmap before then, during obama’s first term, where they successfully took control of state houses and smaller offices throughout the country. And they fucked the maps to keep power. And all of that led to a right-stacked court that will lie to get the seat, take bribes when sitting in that seat, and then continually tow the party line with all of their insane fearmongering. They opened the door for abortion to be made illegal by the states they stacked in their favor and then changed the local laws to harm people.
You’re right, this is technically the way it’s supposed to work, but it doesn’t work anymore. Because there are no means of truly dealing with people exploiting the system and breaking it for their own gain except for toothless censures and other symbolic votes. And when those same broken systems made companies all the more powerful, they birthed FOX and MSNBC and made voting, not only really hard for specifically targeted communities that would act as a check on this type of shit, but also made it useless for the other people. Because they’re only doing exactly what the right wing mediasphere wants them to do.
They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them.
Yup, because they had control of the Senate. They were voted in. I'm not denying that Republicans are immoral, unethical scumbags with the intent to power game the system, but we have no tools to fix that in our current system other than overwhelming it. It only gets worse the longer we wait.
There really aren't a lot of other options for the citizenry. You can LARP at revolution or whatever, but I'm not volunteering first and I don't see a lot of others doing so either. I, and a lot of other vulnerable people, are not going to come out on top, so I'll pass on that solution.
Fact of the matter is, we could have elected Hillary in 2016. Sure, there was Republican meddling and Comey and yada yada, but it was fully within our abilities and we failed. The Supreme Court would look entirely different right now and we would still have medical rights. We did flip the senate, so it was fully in play before and then Mitch would not have been able to block the Garland appointment. Those are concrete outcomes from something that was fully possible for us to prevent. So I'm just not comfortable writing off voting as worthless at this stage, even with the acknowledged difficulties, gerrymandering, etc.
I wasn’t arguing for not voting. I was just making a point. Should’ve made that clearer, my b
All good, friend. I just think this is possible for us to defeat, even at the ballot box. The American people are powerful when they decide to wield their votes for the actual, true betterment of the country and our democracy. I really think we can do this, together.
Perhaps republicans would choose a more moderate candidate if they didn't have both hands shackled to the two party system via First Past The Post voting.
Very good points, thanks for the correction. My blind rage got in the way…
No worries! I'm full of rage on all this nonsense lately too and I've been in that same mode. I'm happy to join with you in November and in the meantime to start to fix this nonsense!
Without the courts, the law stands. The Supreme Court is not the problem here. The Republican legislature is. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the legislature; and their failure to do that is a problem.
Also, this case is not about women's rights, it is about trans rights. Trans men are impacted too.
Their failure to do that is by design.
And THIS is why you vote for harm reduction every fucking year.
Yes, this has been part of a plan going back to even before reagan. But one fucking election of people whining that the wrong person won the primaries extra fucked the supreme court for the foreseeable future. And we have the same clowns trying to pull the same shit going into this Fall.
"Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against." -- W.C. Fields in a rare serious moment.
Yeah. My father is a REAL piece of shit and said it in the context of "I hate that Bush" but it still sticks with me:
In primaries? Vote for who you like. When it is time for the real election? Vote for the platform you hate the least. Bare minimum, it gives you the right to bitch and moan come February. Because if you don't vote? You actively chose to not have a say in the government.
... well, you also may have been disenfranchised by a bunch of republican shitheads. But it is the thought that counts.
Bernie is the closest it comes to a politician I actually like and even he is to the right of me on some things, so I can't even vote for someone I like in a primary most of the time. The best I can do is the person I dislike least.
But I agree with you about the general. Vote to block the person that has the greatest chance of winning that you dislike the most. It's kind of a complicated calculus in some countries, but in the U.S., that means either a Democrat or a Republican because no one else is going to win.
So, even though I don't particularly like the Democrats, I vote for them anyway.
Its great that you liked Sanders. I... have very mixed feelings about him and mostly am angry at how much influence he pissed away.
But here is the thing? If you don't think you are being represented by the party? Then work with it. Even Sanders learned that after he spent most of his career actively dicking over the Democrats and it resulted in him becoming a household name.
Contact your local Democratic party. The Internet loves to paint them as bogeymen who actively hurt any good candidates and... some do. But the majority are the idealists who joined up because they gave a shit about Obama or Hilary or even Sanders. But they support the people who run because... they understand that the goal is harm reduction. Someone who gives a crap and is willing to do outreach work? You have a LOT of influence and can work on seeking out those candidates who DO represent you. And as you shift the local party, so too do you eventually shift the bigger party. Because as much as people hate ol' Genocidde Joe: he is ridiculously left of Clinton and, in some aspects, even Obama.
I am glad we got The Squad, even if they are sometimes idiots. But Sanders should have led to a mass shift in the party as a whole.
I wouldn't say I like him. As I said, he comes closest to a politician I like. There has never in my lifetime been a mainstream politician who didn't have at least a few policies I really was not a fan of. I realize I'm never going to get my pony, but that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically like the choices I'm given.
Bernie wants to save capitalism from itself.
Should we really fight so hard to save a system that is okay with people being homeless, desperate, and exploited their entire lives?
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me, but I'm not a big fan of capitalism...
Fight hard to get FPTP or deal with the constant abuse you sustain from the government. This mindset keeps both of these parties in power.
You do both.
I am not as focused on ranked choice as others (I very much argue we basically already have the outcome with the primary system) and would rather a focus on getting rid of the electoral college entirely to allow for a popular vote. It doesn't matter
What matters is making sure we have a country where we can push toward that in a few years. Since, especially in 2024, one candidate is outright talking about dismantling democracy entirely. And, because of 2016, we have a supreme court that is basically "what do republicans want us to do?" at any given moment.
I'm in Kansas so I just vote third party federally and against Brownback when he pops up then against every incumbent.
We're never going to stop fighting over the lesser of evils. We'll just keep sliding auth while arguing over minimal harm.
Dig me up when people decide to do something about it.
Clinton earned her loss.
Since you seem very familiar with the shortcomings of First Past The Post voting, you probably would be interested to hear there are alternative electoral systems out there with no chance for a spoiler effect.
Alternative vote
Ranked choice voting
STAR voting
You should ask your representatives about electoral reform so we can fix this mathematical flaw in our voting system. Then no one would have to cast a "harm reduction vote". They would be free to vote for someone they feel best represents them, safe in the knowledge their vote would still count against those they don't want in office.
I am less convinced that alternate voting models will make a significant difference (especially when we look at stuff like France actively unifying the left-leaning parties to fight fascism), but cool.
Unless you are going to implement that by early October, it isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is harm reduction and preserving human rights.
Every time the illegitimate SCOTUS takes away more rights from the normal people, I look at my conservative neighbors and recognize my enemy. Conservatives surround us and celebrate the pain, misery and death they cause. Yet, we treat them with kindness and professionalism as if conservatism is some legitimate world-view that deserves any amount of respect.
Conservatism is not normal. It is not respectable. Conservatives are a hate-group and should be openly identified and treated as such.
There has never been a peaceful resolution for fascism. To address a deadly infestation of conservatives, one must take action. We must all take action, or we can expect to be oppressed, tortured and murdered for generations to come.
This is not like WWII. There will be no outside force to save us. We must do this ourselves and we must do it immediately, before they achieve their permanent win condition.
Shouldn't your enemy be the 1% that is funding the propaganda networks for both Republicans and democrats?
What action are you trying to imply, exactly?
Sounds like a divisive call for violence and civil war, the exact sort of shit the nuttier conservatives play up when talking about liberals. You aren't even advocating attacking the definite bad actors in positions of power, you are advocating attacking neighbors.
This even works as the exact sort of propaganda foreign state adversaries would use to stir up unrest to keep the US frozen from the inside, in to reduce our impact on potential global conflicts, ie Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.
When all you see are enemies, you've embraced the very hate you think you are standing against.
Fuck.
We know what they'll rule.
And then there will be a spike in the teen suicide rate.
"What about the children?"
Drives kids to suicide
Conservatism is a cancer
It's okay if those sort of kids die. They are an abomination unto the lord, after all. And if you kill yourself, you go to hell so bonus!
since this country has such a long evil and stupid history there are probably more documents you could pull out against this, rather than just being normal and evaluating the law on 'does it seem normal or moral to ban this' like a human fucking being would. almost like ConStITuTUiOnALiTy is a dumb fucking way validate the law.
oh and what, at least half of these guys are outlandishly corrupt but still get to sit there?
just send out little ballots in the mail for every case instead of relying on these scum, jesus.
rather than just being normal and evaluating the law on ‘does it seem normal or moral to ban this’
This is the job of the legislature. To make law based on norms and morals, as well as a dozen other factors.
almost like ConStITuTUiOnALiTy is a dumb fucking way validate the law
The job of the judiciary is to rule based on what the various laws say, which obviously includes the Constitution.
Do you really want the judiciary ignoring the law and legislating from the bench? Remember, your preferred group isn't the one in the majority.
Does Roberts just forward what the Vatican sends him or is it more of a group effort?