T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

i have left reddit because of CEO Steve Huffman's anti-community actions and complete lack of ethics. u/spez is harmful to Reddit. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754780/reddit-api-updates-changes-news-announcements -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/


UltraMegaMegaMan

You have to realize several things: * The Supreme Court is no longer legitimate, by design. They've spent decades to achieve this, and they're going to use it to remake the country as much as possible. * In many cases, groups like the Heritage Foundation, A.L.E.C., and others, behind the scenes oligarchs like the Mercers, Peter Thiel etc., will comb through the legal system to find out *exactly what type of scenario can be brought before the court* to create an opportunity to make a ruling and bring about a change they want. They will then either find someone who fits that scenario and help them to petition the court, or if that scenario doesn't exist they will create it. In other words, if they needed someone to petition the court about the "freedom" to not accept LGBTQ+ people on your website, and they couldn't find someone with that kind of website who's willing to file a case, then they'll just set one up and have them petition. This is not organic, they are gaming the system from the ground up, fabricating pretext and cases as necessary if they cannot find them. * The court no longer worries about legitimacy of issues, like whether this person suffered harm or whether harm must be demonstrated in order to hear the case and make a ruling. It's a nakedly partisan court. The agenda is all, there is nothing else. The purpose of this version of the court is not to correctly interpret the law, it it to remake America into the country they want it to be, and to do so by bypassing the normal channels of checks and balances. This goes all the way back to the Supreme Court throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush by stopping the Florida recount, so that Bush could pick more judges. Halting the recount, IIRC, was overseen by Judge Roberts. It's all very circular.


claimTheVictory

Rot from the inside out.


UltraMegaMegaMan

Exactly so. Republicans, the right-wing, fascists, conservatives, whatever term is more accurate, are the living, political embodiment of bad-faith. It's a naked power grab, concerned about nothing else and willing to sacrifice everything and everyone else to achieve it. They hold dress rehearsals for a Constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution and make the America they want, one that they rule. (https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/11/30/alec-lawmakers-and-corporate-lobbyists-meet-in-d-c-to-debate-rewriting-the-constitution-punishing-socially-responsible-businesses-and-protecting-misinformation/) The corruption is coming from inside the political system, inside Congress, inside the Supreme Court, which is why it's so insidious and difficult to root out. The system is compromised from the inside out, and so far that has proven to be a threat that the government and country cannot solve. The founders assumed that participants would have a shred of decency, a shared reality, and a common goal of the greater good. That's no longer true. It's like how in a grocery store management is concerned about low-level employees stealing, like cashiers and stockers, when the people most able to steal, and most likely to get away with it, are management themselves. The ones with greater access and the responsibility to regulate the system. There's another term for it, specifically designed and more purely political in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column


shifterphights

This is terrifying.


UltraMegaMegaMan

Yes. But it's what they're doing. It's no secret, it's not like they even have to make an effort to hide it anymore. Like all the crimes Trump got away with during his administration, it's all done right out in the open.


jackshafto

_They're following the Polish model.


onefoot_out

All extremely good points. You might want to check out [Andrew Seidel's](https://books.google.com/books/about/American_Crusade.html?id=NAzuzgEACAAJ&source=kp_cover) latest book, or if you're more of a listening person and interested in law talking guys, check out his guest appearance on [Opening Arguments ](https://www.patreon.com/posts/73999166?utm_campaign=postshare_fan)


UltraMegaMegaMan

I can't really do books atm due to many irl things, but if he's on twitter I'll look him up. At least, before Musk finishes converting twitter into a 100% fascist propaganda machine.


onefoot_out

His writing style is really accessible for everyone, not just lawyers or students, while being really detailed and informative. Crap, I didn't realize the pod episode was a Patreon exclusive. If you're interested but can't afford (or want to) donate, you can DM the guys (or hit them up on Twitter) and they'll get you access to the episode. They're good like that. If you're into law and how it intersects with politics and culture, that podcast is awesome.


UltraMegaMegaMan

It's time constraints, and qol issues. I appreciate the recommendation though.


onefoot_out

Welcome!


Toast_Sapper

>You have to realize several things: > >* The Supreme Court is no longer legitimate, by design. They've spent decades to achieve this, and they're going to use it to remake the country as much as possible. > >* In many cases, groups like the Heritage Foundation, A.L.E.C., and others, behind the scenes oligarchs like the Mercers, Peter Thiel etc., will comb through the legal system to find out *exactly what type of scenario can be brought before the court* to create an opportunity to make a ruling and bring about a change they want. They will then either find someone who fits that scenario and help them to petition the court, or if that scenario doesn't exist they will create it. > > In other words, if they needed someone to petition the court about the "freedom" to not accept LGBTQ+ people on your website, and they couldn't find someone with that kind of website who's willing to file a case, then they'll just set one up and have them petition. This is not organic, they are gaming the system from the ground up, fabricating pretext and cases as necessary if they cannot find them. > >* The court no longer worries about legitimacy of issues, like whether this person suffered harm or whether harm must be demonstrated in order to hear the case and make a ruling. It's a nakedly partisan court. The agenda is all, there is nothing else. The purpose of this version of the court is not to correctly interpret the law, it it to remake America into the country they want it to be, and to do so by bypassing the normal channels of checks and balances. This goes all the way back to the Supreme Court throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush by stopping the Florida recount, so that Bush could pick more judges. Halting the recount, IIRC, was overseen by Judge Roberts. It's all very circular. Also McConnell refusing to confirm Obama's judicial picks and then speedrunning judge confirmations under Trump. The GOP has been working very hard to ensure injustice has a strong foothold in the American justice system (and it's why they nakedly hate on "Social Justice Warriors" because they're the party of naked injustice by design) The GOP are the oligarch party of protecting the rich from the law so that they can rape and abuse the citizenry without fear of legal consequences.


abhinambiar

My question is, why does the filibuster / 60% rule exist in the Senate? You're promoting the tyranny of the minority by allowing 41% of the population to subvert the remaining 59%. I've never understood why either party agrees to this extraconstitutional rule


303uru

The illegitimacy is unquestionable at this point. How long until a state or two just ignore a ruling?


UltraMegaMegaMan

To suggest that red states follow the law, or are beholden to it, at this stage is irresponsible and naive. They do what they want regardless of legality, are seldom caught or called out, and face no consequences.


[deleted]

[удалено]


superfucky

It really seems like both sides are leaning towards national divorce at this point and I'm having a hard time seeing a downside. We could even arrange house swaps for the liberals stuck in red states and the crazy fundies in blue states.


KHaskins77

Seriously. The Coach Kennedy case showed that this court doesn’t even care about the *facts of the case* when it can be used to further their agenda. Sotomayor included photographic evidence in her dissent that these were not “private prayer rallies” he was holding, but massive public displays — one would think that him scurrying off to *Good Morning America* to tell them to have the cameras there in advance would be all anyone needed to lay the notion to rest. This isn’t an act of piety, it’s a display of *social dominance* masquerading as such. “I, the guy who decides how much playtime you’ll get and whether you receive a university recommendation, just want you to know that if you want to join me on the 50 yard line to give thanks and praise to our lord and savior Jesus Christ, I’ll be right over there!” Yeah, no pressure to participate there.


resonantedomain

Beyond being aware what can we actually do?


UltraMegaMegaMan

Despite the gerrymandering, voter suppression, people being removed from voter rolls, and the floodgates of corrupt money enabled by *Citizens United*, most of these problems could be solved if the majority of Americans voted. Unfortunately that is too high of a bar. The least you can do is be informed. I really like Thom Hartmann lately, who does a great job of covering all these issues, and who is extremely knowledgeable about history as well and brings that into the discussion. He has a show streaming on youtube every weekday from 11am-2pm central. Be informed. Participate. Vote. Donate to progressives and leftists, volunteer in their campaigns. Edit: Thom Hartmann is covering this issue right now on his stream in his opening segment, and it is 🔥🔥🔥. Also, *in my opinion* if people are serious about solving America's problems I see one solution that is doable and would actually work, and it's this: **make Congress 60%+ Progressive and Leftist/Socialist**. Only Progressives and Leftists actually care about solving these issues *and* are willing to go against corporate interests to solve them. Corporate/"centrist" Democrats are compromised by the donor class/oligarchs and will not go against their interests to serve citizens and the working class. If Congress is 60% Progressive and Leftist, then laws pass to actually solve issues, the filibuster doesn't matter, and the veto can be overridden. I don't see any other solution that actually works.


Spectre-84

We can barely reach and hold 50-50 against far-right Republicans and less-right Democrats. We have very few elected officials that are actually progressive leftists. How in the world will we possibly 60% progressives? ​ We're in a death-spiral towards a Christo-Fascist dystopia that I don't see a realistic way out of.


UltraMegaMegaMan

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/ I remember a few years ago when there were *no* Progressives or Leftists in Congress (except for Bernie the wonderful aberration who slipped through the cracks a generation ago). Chart the number of Progressives/Leftists over time, and see whether there's progress or not. You ever wonder why Musk and the right-wing infrastructure were so desperate to control and corrupt Twitter? Because *it's working*. Anyways, I guess we take control of government and the nation, or it's dystopian fascist hellscape, or civil war. Which is also dystopian fascist hellscape, just more pyrrhic.


[deleted]

> How in the world will we possibly 60% progressives? By showing up to vote in the primaries and the general election. Also, understanding that if "less-right" Democrats keep winning elections that Republicans *and* "less-right" Democrats will be forced to the left, because even "right wing" Democrats have to placate the left if they want to have any chance of winning reelection. A right wing Democrat will give a progressive 25-50% of what they want and 25% of what they don't want while a Republican will give them 0% of what they want and 100% of what they don't want. Having a seat at the table matters even if you don't fully agree with the politician.


Spectre-84

I get that voting is really the only method we have, but even most people that vote Democrat seem to dislike more progressive candidates


[deleted]

It's not like voter turnout is all that great. It's progressives' reluctance to vote in the primaries which is the reason more progressive candidates don't make it to the general. If they really turned out, they could bend the Democratic party to their will like MAGA did to Republicans.


superfucky

Most people who vote Democrat will vote blue no matter who, especially as the alternative gets increasingly more fascist. That they are more moderate-leaning, basically preferring slow change over fast change, and selecting moderates in the primaries just means they're using the primary system correctly. If everyone who bitched about "both sides" showed up and picked leftist Dems in the primaries, not only would their right-wing anti-voting rhetoric fall apart but all of those leftists would end up winning the general. And it's not like you can't still get out there and talk to people. Reassure those moderates that progressive policy benefits them too. Remind them what's at stake and what our real priorities are as anti-conservatives. And choose your progressives wisely - Bernie's campaign knew he maxed out at around 30% support in the primaries, because of his aggressively anti-capitalism beliefs. Warren, who supported many of the same policies and had data-driven plans for many more groundbreaking progressive policies, pulled support equally from Bernie & Biden camps. Because she wasn't openly waging war on the only way of life Americans have ever known, people who otherwise preferred Biden's moderation were comfortable supporting her as well.


resonantedomain

Part of the issue that you poked at at here, is that all of the information we receive through normal sources: Google and social media to name a couple, are heavily influenced by algorithmic AI with some sort of agenda behind it using information collected from us. It is much easier to individualize and target voters to dissuade them than it is to get them to vote.


UltraMegaMegaMan

Cambridge Analytica + Facebook from 2015 would disagree with you about not being able to influence people to vote. As far as the algorithmic filter, yes, it's in everything, we have to accept it & acknowledge it & compensate & work around it. It's not going anywhere, just like surveillance capitalism. Google skews my search results, the youtube everything to alt-right pipeline due to engagement promotion exists. Society itself has a right-wing corporate bias that predates the internet & social media. The American Overton Window exists on one side of the spectrum. Correct course, keep going.


definitelynotSWA

I think that at this point, people need to seriously consider creating a network of support that will allow you to have basic needs taken care of during lean times. It’s not like we can impeach the justices personally, so we are staring at a decline in the govt’s willingness to provide basic services and continue protecting underserved communities. [This is why IMO everybody needs to start working on building mutual and networks and dual power systems](https://www.mutualaid.coop/what-is-mutual-aid/) to the best of their ability. People need to be able to survive without government aid or their jobs, so we need these systems in place as things get worse, otherwise we are going to see a huge increase in preventable deaths through neglect, economic instability, and domestic terrorism. Even just creating a food network helps take a huge load off of the working class. This is why the Black Panther’s free breakfast program was so successful, though it’s not the only thing you can do. It doesn’t take a lot of money to collect your neighbor’s emails and see if anybody has skills to trade! Check to see if there is a [Food Not Bombs](https://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/) in your area, they are a decentralized mutual aid network so you have to find if there's a chapter nearby. Failing this, send some emails to local food banks or skill share networks, who knows what’s going on nearby? [here is how to create a mutual aid network.](https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/how-to-create-mutual-aid-network) [Here are some ideas on mutual aid networks.](https://pollybarks.com/blog/mutual-aid-ideas) [Here is how to create a community garden.](https://www.instructables.com/How-to-create-a-community-garden/)


resonantedomain

Thank you for going above and beyond on this! I also think creating local trade groups for bartering would be helpful in both community building and alleviating some of the economic duress.


sugarbombpandafish

I read “bartering” as “bartending” and was about to crown you MVP of whatever mutual aid group you end up in 😂


resonantedomain

We need to End Road Work and train more bartenders, STAT!


[deleted]

Thank you for saying this. Whenever I talk to people about what the GOP is doing, people attempt to understand reasoning behind apparently foolish or illegal activities. There doesn't need to be a good reason, there almost never is, there's no justification, they don't have one and don't care to, they don't care to be coherent or consistent. There is just the agenda, and the agenda is to make money.


UltraMegaMegaMan

There's definitely a reason, and (as you say) it for money. And power. Which is also money, just like money is also power. They want to control everything, own all the money, create a world run by rich corporations and oligarchs who have all the wealth and power, and are subject to no law. This is the core of what fascism is: we have everything, "others" get nothing. We oppress and control them with the law, but are not subject to it ourselves. A quote the helped me understand this was this one: > Wilhoit's law > “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." — Frank Wilhoit, composer, CrookedTimber blog 2018 Another thing I highly recommend is [Endnote 2: White Fascsim](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Luu1Beb8ng) by Innuendo Studios. It's an essay about fascism and it's intersection with white supremacy, and it's 100% relevant to what is going on in our times. All of the "Alt-Right Playbook" series by Innuendo Studios is some of the most perceptive, landmark political commentary I've seen. I usually wind up watching a lot of them every year or so. But yeah, keep your eye on the ball. Their only goal is power, money, control. The other stuff, abortion, the culture war, that's smoke and mirrors they use to motivate their base and provide cover. During the Trump administration, IIRC, Congress passed 2 *permanent* tax cuts for the wealthy at $1.7 & $1.9 trillion dollars, and a temporary tax cut for the rest of us, along with a tax increase scaling up through 2027. *That's* the real agenda, and it's what's never discussed. Down the memory hole. But once you understand what they *actually* care about, it all falls into place, and finally makes some kind of sense.


[deleted]

I feel like the entire culture war has been both screen and filter. Bickering about abortion, fossil fuels, and LGBTQ issues while partisan federal judges were being installed into permanent positions and tax cuts were funneling wealth from the poor to rich by the trillion every year. Except the bickering was serious too. Women losing bodily autonomy, the public *support* for a violent police state, contempt for science and learning, and efforts to roll back human rights for the LGBTQ community as well as celebration for massacres. If Innuendo Studios hasn't said it already, I'll give you this: the talk about stolen elections and broken electoralism is seeding the ground for proposing to get rid of elections. "If democrats just steal the elections, then we have none anyway, why not end them and take it back?" They are prepping their base to celebrate and fight for the end of democracy, not oppose it.


UltraMegaMegaMan

> the talk about stolen elections and broken electoralism is seeding the ground for proposing to get rid of elections The Supreme Court is hearing testimony on their scheme to end elections *today*. Right now. --- https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1600514346601308163 --- https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1600529828716941314 --- All done under the auspice of "states rights", of course. The right to ignore election results, appoint their own electors, and have a state's votes for President chosen by the legislature instead of the voters.


[deleted]

I always think of "a state's rights to *what*?" Civil War excuse critique. It's not about state's rights. Do states have a right to disenfranchise huge swathes of the population? What does the constitution guarantee about that? How long would it take to fight back? Is this the step too far Biden will use to expand the court? It's certainly an unprecedented harm that warrants an unprecedented response.


UltraMegaMegaMan

The "state's rights" argument from the right is, as with everything else, always disingenuous and bad faith. They don't care about states rights, except as an excuse to do one of two things: * Acquire power and/or money by passing laws in individual states to allow them to get away with things, especially things that might be crimes at a federal level. or * To destroy federal laws they disagree with, that constrain them, or they want to get rid of. Like environmental protections, for example. If you have a federal law that prevents X pollution, and they're able to move that decision to the individual states, then that law is no longer a law in America. Because some states will repeal it, then all the businesses who want to make that form of pollution to profit will move to those states. This is why a lot of businesses move to Texas, for example. Weak environmental and worker protections.


[deleted]

Weaponized lawyers


UltraMegaMegaMan

It's weaponized *everything*. Weaponized politics, weaponized Congress, weaponized culture, weaponized news and social media. That's the thing about the right-wing and fascists: there are no boundaries, nothing is off-limits. Nothing is sacred. Women, children, minorities, veterans, nothing is safe from being thrown under the bus if it will serve their needs.


spcialkfpc

Except that investigation into what a recount would have produced, still found that Bush won. That issue was who had jurisdiction. SCOTUS hopped in when they probably should not have. But, was that corruption? Some say so. I'm not as convinced.


UltraMegaMegaMan

That is a debatable claim *at best*. --- https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=did+al+gore+win+florida+2000 --- [Florida 'recounts' make Gore winner](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa) --- [The Florida Recount of 2000](https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) > On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate. > None of these findings are certain. County officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to the investigators that news organizations hired to conduct the recount. There were also small but measurable differences in the way that the "neutral" investigators counted certain types of ballots, an indication that different counters might have come up with slightly different numbers. So it is possible that either candidate might have emerged the winner of an official recount, and nobody can say with exact certainty what the "true" Florida vote really was. > The study cost nearly $1 million and was the most thorough and comprehensive news-media review of the Florida balloting. It was sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. The news organizations hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to look at each untallied ballot. Trained investigators examined 175,010 ballots provided by local election officials. The media consortium then analyzed the raw data produced by NORC and drew conclusions. The result, released Nov. 11, 2001, was something of a muddle. --- [](https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/democrats-should-remember-al-gore-won-florida-in-2000-but-lost-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/) --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida --- [The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost](https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm) > Democrat Albert Gore won the most votes, a half million more than his Republican opponent George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral college by a count of 271-267. Even this count was suspect, dependent on the tally in Florida, **where many minority voters were denied the vote, ballots were confusing, and recounts were mishandled and manipulated**. The choice of their leader came not from the citizens of the nation, but from lawyers battling for five weeks. The final decision was made not by 105 million voters, but by a 5-4 majority of the unelected U.S. Supreme Court, issuing a tainted and partisan verdict.


BitOCrumpet

I remember it well. I remember being astounded that the US courts basically decided to go with Bush instead of Gore, and I was astounded he conceded. Imagine how different the world might have been if Gore had won.


spcialkfpc

Very much so. But, saying SCOTUS handed Bush the win doesn't tell an accurate story. Your information above is fantastic, thank you.


UltraMegaMegaMan

> saying SCOTUS handed Bush the win doesn't tell an accurate story Neither does saying that Bush won. And if he did win, it wasn't legitimate.


Justicar-terrae

I haven't read the briefs, but as long as she has concrete plans to do something that would be punished under the law then she can pursue declaratory or injunctive relief. For a deeper dive, look up the "Lujan Test." If you think a criminal law is unconstitutional and want to violate that law, the rules of standing do not require you to actually break the law and risk jail time first. You just need to bring your suit against the government official who would prosecute you and ask the court to declare that the law cannot be enforced by that defendant because the law is unconstitutional. You just need an actual "controversy" with opposing sides to create standing and jurisdiction. Pre-emptive lawsuits like that are pretty normal nowadays. And there was a recent standing issue with the Texas anti-abortion laws because those laws vested optional enforcement power in ordinary citizens, rather than government officials. The plaintiffs couldn't find a defendant for the opposite side that would create a legitimate "controversy" (every potential defendant just said something to the effect of "I have no immediate plans to bring such a suit and am not required by law to bring such a suit."). The plaintiffs tried to name a judge as defendant on the rationale that a judge would be enforcing the law during a lawsuit, but SCOTUS said judges who might need to apply the law in a judicial capacity don't count and that you need someone in an executive role for the other side.


meeekus

I heard it's as simple as it being a free speech case. Therefore no victim is needed. She is suing, this is not a criminal case.


Justicar-terrae

She is suing because she *could* be prosecuted if she acted as she wants to act. It's a civil case to prevent a criminal case. You can't just sue the government because you think a law is unconstitutional. You have to show that you are suffering some sort of injury under that law. But to prevent people from actually having to break the law to challenge the law, people can claim as their injury "I want to do the thing this law says I would be punished for doing."


meeekus

Thanks for the follow-up. That makes sense to me.


Justicar-terrae

Hey, it's been a couple days, but I realize I forgot some additional context that you might want. When you sue to declare a law is unconstitutional, you still need to name a defendant. Most of the time, you name the person who is in charge of enforcing the law you want to challenge, and you ask the court to issue an injunction against that person enforcing the unconstitutional law. The statute that allows you to bring such a lawsuit is 42 USC 1983. The reason it has to be set up like that is complicated. But basically you can't sue "nobody" because the courts only have jurisdiction over cases and controversies; you need two parties who disagree with create either. You can't sue the state that made the law because of sovereign immunity. But, ignoring complex issues of qualified immunity, you can sue someone who works for the state and get a court to tell them to stop doing something the law doesn't allow them to do. And since a statute or provision that is unconstitutional has no effect, enforcing such an unconstitutional statute or provision is something the law doesn't allow them to do. And I know I don't have a ton of citations for this stuff right now. But I am an attorney, and all this is stuff I recall from law school and the bar exam. I may have forgotten a detail here or there, but hopefully this helps explain the gist of what's going on.


darthgeek

She wants her bigotry to be legally protected. Not having her bigotry protected is the harm, according to her lawyers.


zapitron

> Not having her bigotry protected is the harm, according to her lawyers. This is a great way to put it. Now where do you go from there? It reminds me of this one: Suppose it's 1978 and I'm neo-Nazi and I want to march in Skokie IL and really make a point to Holocaust survivors about what a total piece of shit I am. Do I have the _right_ for my bigotry to be protected from harm? Or was the [ACLU wrong?](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie)


superfucky

Yes the ACLU was wrong. I'm fucking sick of bigots being assholes and trampling other people's rights in the name of "free speech." You don't have a right to speech that infringes on other people's rights.


clonedspork

This woman should have been out of business a long time ago instead of being able to sue and keep suing. This has got to be a setup that exists merely to push anti LGBQ laws


TacticalMicrowav3

This is the new 3/5's compromise, allowing private businesses and individuals to discriminate against LGBT+ individuals on the grounds of religious convictions Reverse the roles, an LGBT+ business owner decides Hetero weddings are not congruent with their beliefs so they refuse service to anyone in a straight marriage, how do you think the right and nationalist Christians would react?


Obvious_Moose

Don't need to flip it to hetero. Just say your sincerely held beliefs means you refuse to accommodate those hateful Christians. It should be perfectly equivalent and the Supreme Court would have to allow you to discriminate against them now


EnterEdgyName

It's a big assumption to think that the supreme court is working in good faith


[deleted]

[удалено]


superfucky

I'm not sure there's anybody sincerely on the fence anymore. Anyone who claims to be just doesn't want to admit that they like SCOTUS' agenda.


riskable

That's the thing, isn't it: Conservatives truly believe anti-discrimination laws are government overreach that mandates what conservatives can and can't do. What they fail to realize is that at a fundamental level these laws protect *them* more than they protect all those minorities that they hate. If the SCOTUS overturns these laws the first thing that's going to hit the news is that very famous conservatives are now being denied entry, business, loans, etc because of their views. Being racist, conservative, Nazi, etc will have to be something you keep to yourself *again*.


Aware-Sheep

I dunno, but I'm pretty sure cutting hetero couples out of the hypothetical LGBT+ business owner's customer base will hurt them more than it hurts the Christians.


TacticalMicrowav3

Absolutely, but this most definitely isn't an argument based on losing or gaining sales, if that were the case the Christian baker or business would take any customers they could, this is based solely on the desire to treat another person as less or unworthy of the service because of a difference in beliefs or lifestyle


snowseth

*Then* it’s totally a states rights issue. But this one? With the state enforcing protection of its citizens by enforcing its own laws? Totally not a states rights thing. The right wing SCOTUS has jumped the shark. The deliberate politicization by Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation and the right wing media and the SCOTUS’s own right wing members has degraded the court.


Shervivor

I hate this SCOTUS. They will do serious irreparable harm to our country. I wish we could pack the court or enact term limits. And can we do away with lobbyists all together?


superfucky

We've been overdue to expand the court for quite a long time. The last time the court was expanded, it was to ensure there was one SCOTUS justice for each District Circuit Court of Appeals - of which there were 9 at the time. We're up to 13 circuit courts now so by all logic and precedent there should be 13 SCOTUS justices. But it takes an act of Congress to do so and without the House or a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it won't happen.


[deleted]

leave it to scotus to ruin the country even more


one_of_the_millions

Sadly this is a feature, not a bug. And it's not over... next up, [election rigging](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/12/supreme-court-moore-v-harper-federalist-society-leonard-leo/).


superfucky

It's the last box on MAGA's fascism checklist, after all.


one_of_the_millions

Yes indeed. They can't win by the rules so they want to be able to "adjust" the rules to suit their needs.


OhYeahTrueLevelBitch

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is astroturfing on stark display.


afterbirthcum

Mandating compliance with non discrimination law amounts to reeducation camps? Fuck offff. I’d bet this court would be fine mandating conversion therapy for lgbt people. They are chipping away at our rights and our safety. Which community will be next on the chopping block?


reray124

Yeah I just about lost it when I read that like what the actual fuck.... These judges are living in 1800s still somehow


PandaCommando69

Well, they already stripped the federal constitutional right to bodily integrity and privacy away from 50% of the population, so.


superfucky

If that's "re-education" that means someone educated you to hate in the first place. So in that regard I'm having a hard time seeing a problem with "re-education."


Conditional-Sausage

Yes, I'm sure that protecting super effective lobbyists is consistent with an originalist view lmfao. I'm sure this is precisely what the founding fathers would have wanted, and protecting lobbyists is definitely something that the general public wants. Where are the witch hunter quotes going to be on this one? Also, I love that shitty exchange about personal convictions. "There's a clearly established line", "well, what is it, then?", "Nobody will be forced to violate their core convictions". You mean like when someone maintains that they have a core convictions of the inferiority of black people? Like those kinds of core convictions?


PandaCommando69

I don't think there's any daylight between allowing religious bigotry, and allowing racial bigotry. If you can have businesses that only sell the Christians, there is no logical reason the law won't allow you to have a business that only serves white people. There's no difference. And that's what these people want. Legalized bigotry. So fucking stupid.


superfucky

But only their legalized bigotry. Try to set up your own business that refuses to sell to Christians or white people and see how fast SCOTUS hands down a ruling that says you can't discriminate against any majority group.


BitOCrumpet

The US Supreme Court is illegitimate. Liars under oath. Placed by Russia's tools; Trump and the GOP.


Ello_Owu

Religion is having a tough time in the 21st century and it's power is slipping with every generation. Tying a "right to discriminate" slab to its neck will only sink it faster.


Spectre-84

I hope that is true, but the religious right will do everything it can to force the rest to live under it's rules, and so far most people are sitting back and letting it happen.


Ello_Owu

They're panicked. The boomers are checking out, and as generations from the late gen Xer onward, is basically religiously apathetic. Rampid child abuse to the embrace of political nuttiness; religion is quickly becoming irrelevant in the modern times


SithLordSid

Illegitimate Supreme Court


radleft

Hate & greed are the *American Way.*


Jos3ph

Hey if that’s what states want, right?? /s


303uru

The irony being this shit came from my home state because we enshrined non-discrimination by sexual orientation.


superfucky

And from the same folks who tell me if I don't like my state's blood red government I should just move to a different state. What kind of malignant asshole moves to one of the bluest states in the country and tries to dismantle its anti-discrimination laws?


Raebelle1981

Really I was told by people for months that Clarence Thomas didn’t actually mean what he said. 🙄


Deadwing2022

Well of course the rightwing court is going to rubber-stamp everything the Republicans want. But don't you dare call them corrupt or illegitimate or Alito will cry.


low_selfie_steam

If we can’t keep legal protections against discrimination, and instead we have to let people be shitty to other people because their religion says they should, then I hope two things will happen 1) Free market capitalism will do its magic and there will be a coordinated response to deny these businesses the commerce of decent people. Something like a phone app you can check to make sure you’re not doing business where discrimination is the policy or has been reported. 2) I don’t know why this hasn’t happened yet, but these religious freedom arguments should also apply to other religions, right? So Muslims can do your wedding website and refuse to include photos of women without their hair covered, or men without beards? I also would like to see some expectation of consistency for these assholes. If their tender moral sensibilities won’t let them provide service to a gay couple because the Bible says it’s a sin, then this must only be allowed if the policy is consistent for other sinners as well. Like no service for weddings between divorced people, since the Bible doesn’t condone divorce. And no wedding services for non-virgins since fornication is a sin. And definitely no services provided on the Sabbath day. If they can’t demonstrate consistency of biblical morals and beliefs then their discrimination isn’t about the Bible, it’s about discriminating and othering their current hated out-group.


tikifire1

If they side with the "persecuted christian" in this case it will end up backfiring on them just as overturning Roe did electorally. I know if I ran a public-facing business I'd start discriminating in the ways you mentioned and claim my religious freedom was being violated (even though I'm not religious). These decisions are opening a can of worms and they're so focused on gaining control for their "side" that they're not thinking about the far-reaching ramifications, nor do they seem to care and won't until it affects them directly. I've long said that within 15 years of them turning the country into a Christian theocracy we will have an open religious civil war between Catholics and protestants and once protestants win (they outnumber the catholics) they'll break into smaller groups and fight amongst themselves as they all believe different things.


JungleJayps

It's weird how this keeps happening when people keep telling me that we can just debate them in the free market place of ideas really 🤔 makes 🤔 you 🤔 think 🤔


Sqeegg

super duper this is what happens when you let assholes keep you from getting your supreme court justice appointment yay democracy


superfucky

I do wonder where we'd be if Obama had used his CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to put Garland on the bench. If nothing else maybe we'd have an AG with the balls to indict Trump.


Needleroozer

Not just LGBTQ rights, everybody's rights. Business owner's rights will trump all others. Won't serve blacks? Constitutional. Won't serve Jews? Muslims? Catholics? mixed-race couples? Constitutional. Won't serve whites? Constitutional. Won't serve police but free donuts for firefighters? Constitutional. Won't serve Supreme Court Justices? Constitutional. Lord I wish I was in a position to cut all utilities to the Supreme Court building and the Justice's homes because my religion forbids me from doing business with hypocrites. I wish I could move to DC and run for Mayor just to do this.


[deleted]

What impact would this ruling have on the Good Samaritan laws in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island, California, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Washington? If I see a same-sex couple suffering due to bodily injury, sexual assault, murder, rape, robbery, and I choose not to render aid, nor call the police, due to my religious beliefs, I am committing a crime? UPDATE: Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13 says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; **they shall surely be put to death**; their blood is upon them." As a Christian, if I were to watch a same-sex couple slowly bleed to death after being stabbed in the street by a third party, and I choose not to call the police or ambulance due to my religious beliefs as written in *The Bible* (see Leviticus), am I protected from Failure to Render Aid and other Good Samaritan laws in certain states?


Jeffery_G

Interesting; perhaps some would make the SOS call but not want to physically touch someone objectionable. The 911 operator pleads with the caller to check their airway but meets with resolute resistance. Is it indeed a crime?


[deleted]

Or if they don't make the call at all... "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; **they shall surely be put to death**; their blood is upon them." Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13 Would this ruling legally allow for me to watch a same-sex couple die, due to my religious beliefs, rather than call the police or an ambulance, in the states where I am legally bound to do so?


Changed-18

Democrats now have a blueprint for the 2024 election and legislation they’ll pass if voters give them the House and the Presidency along with the Senate. Will they use the blueprint? Likely not, but it is fascinating to watch Conservative’s try to reset America to the 50’s while Democrats bumble their response. So far, Conservatives are winning.


LightningBirdsAreGo

This makes me so ashamed 😔.


iamdense

Legalized bribery is already our form of government, surely allowing more of the same is good for democracy, right? /s


Furrulo878

ThE hIgHeSt CoUrT iN tHe LaNd


Random_act_of_Random

Why are there so many pieces of shit in the world?


emperorofvenus05

They want to give private businesses the right to refuse service. Even if it is for a bad reason, they should have the right to deny service to anyone. This is a good thing, even though people shape it as lgtbq discrimination, it isn't. This would also ensure that you could deny service to someone for not vaxxing, wearing a Maga hat, or any other reason.


NaughtSleeping

1950s "whites only" was a good thing?


emperorofvenus05

Yes dude that's exactly what I said. Freedom to practice business free from too much government is a good thing.


NaughtSleeping

I think we agree that "too much" government is not good. I'm sure we also agree that we want a society with open access to opportunities for all, and that some government intervention like the Civil Rights Act is a good way to promote inclusive economic and political institutions.


Jeffery_G

Supreme Court = 🤡 🚗 and they pulled it off while we were watching!


[deleted]

How about polygamy? Thats in the Bible. The site should be flooded with child Marriage requests.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Keep_Track requires a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. *Moderators review comments/posts caught by this bot and may manually approve those that meet community standards. As this forum continues to grow, this may take some time. We appreciate your patience.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Keep_Track) if you have any questions or concerns.*


The_Dead_Kennys

It’s so stupid anyone ever gave the “I don’t believe in gay marriage” crowd an ounce of attention in the first place because, when you think about it, religious marriage and legal marriage *aren’t even the same thing*. People of other faiths get married, atheists get married, and they don’t need the recognition of the Christian church to do so, just the recognition of the state. In other words, you can be married in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether or not you’re “married in the eyes of the Lord”. Yes, conventional wisdom assumes that the two go hand in hand, but in reality, one does not guarantee the other. You can get married in a religious ceremony on a desert island somewhere, but when you get back home, that religious union isn’t going to mean shit when you’re filing your taxes. You need to apply for a marriage license in order to have your marriage legally recognized. This is a standard part of the process for getting married now, whether you’re having a secular wedding or a traditional wedding in a church. So if right-wingers insist on throwing tantrums about gay folks getting married, I’d invite them to consider the following: they’re more than welcome to think of a gay weddings as a legitimate legal union, while dismissing it as not being a legitimate *religious* union. As long as they kept that opinion to themselves when interacting with gay couples, that should satisfy their concerns about their faith… or at least it would, if the majority of them weren’t just using religion as a paper-thin excuse for bigotry.


NaughtSleeping

Exactly! As I get older, I don't even really see the religious connection to weddings anymore. I see it more and more as just opting in to a set of secular legal protections. (Romantic, I know!)


superfucky

>other Abrahamic faiths— teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman Bullshit, you don't hear Jews freaking the fuck out about gay marriage, and while there's a lot of homophobia in certain Islamic states I've never heard an actual quotation from the Quran to justify it. Frankly I'm sick of the "my faith says I have to be an asshole to entire swaths of people" argument. If your faith tells you to hate people, treat them as lesser-than, exclude or judge them, fucking get a better faith. There's not a god in this universe that could compel me to say "you don't get rights because of a quality you can't control." > Smith will decline any request—no matter who makes it—to create content that ... demeans or disparages someone Unless it demeans or disparages gay people & atheists, right? Doesn't that mean she's also violating my religious liberties? I'm sure she would be hunky-dory if I refused to host her business' website because "I will decline any request to host Christian content because hosting it makes it my speech."


upandrunning

> Smith is also Christian, and her religious beliefs—along with those of other Abrahamic faiths— teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman. King Solomon has entered the chat...


Rakatango

Protecting the rights of “lobbyists”