We know how contentious SCOTUS nominations processes have been throughout history. In the last 20 years, that contentiousness has been dialed up to outright hostility and bending the rules of legislation to the breaking point (many would say beyond) in order to confirm or deny confirmation to a nominee.

Given recent developments, and possible future developments in SCOTUS activities, I fear the next nominee will trigger a true constitutional crisis, either by tactics as eternal Filibustering by one party (leading to an extended time of vacancy and an 8 member court), or by leading the majority party to end the Filibuster, leading to massive reaction from the minority, perhaps outright disobedience.

Even before that, nominee hearings will be a circus unlike anything seen before. Many feel betrayed, they claim (though legal language is difficult and I can't vouch for this), that some of the Justices now on the court had stated that Roe v Wade was "settled precedent", which if you take these viewpoints as generally factual. I don't generally have time to listen to the hearings.

Anyone else feel that the next vacancy will be at the very least the mother of all battles, and fear that it will devolve into a true crisis of governance?

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.

I don't see how the hearings themselves could be any more political theater than they are now. The part that could get even nastier (and lead to delays and/or an 8 member court) is the made-up McConnell "rules" that nominees by the other party won't even be considered if it's "too close" to an election.

NIKV69 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

Actually I haven't heard the media even talking about how future proceedings will go. Much less that it would trigger a crisis. I am saying that, because I believe that it will, just my opinion of course. And it is an opinion irrespective of which side gets to pick the nominee so it is ideologically flat.

In fact, I believe it would be best to stop nominee hearings altogether. They have outlived their exploratory purposes. Any nominee is picked for their ideological stances by the POTUS well before he or she even gets a hearing, and everyone knows where they stand. Further, not a single legislator in those proceedings has an open mind. So they actually cause more instability than good.

So, it's unconstitutional to nomate a senior judge in an election year if POTUS is a Democrat but totally accepatable if POTUS is republican.
No bias here!
That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

I guess I do have some concern that the next time the Senate majority leader tries to pull the same trick McConnell did with Garland and Gorsuch, the president will try to say "welp! Guess you've waived your duty to advise and consent. My guy's on the court."

PhilBy wrote:

So, it's unconstitutional to nomate a senior judge in an election year if POTUS is a Democrat but totally accepatable if POTUS is republican.
No bias here!

That's part 1 of the McConnell rule in a nutshell...

The part 2 being if the President is a Republican, the nominee will be fast-tracked through confirmation regardless of when the next election is.

Not just bias, complete blatant and crass hypocrisy.

Until the 50s, maybe later, nominees didn’t even meet the Senate Judiciary Committee, no circus at all. The present circus is all on Teddy Kennedy and, yes, Joe Biden.

NIKV69 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

Precisely right. The only "Constitutional crisis" we have in this country is not following it.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

Precisely right. The only "Constitutional crisis" we have in this country is not following it.

Do spare us the sanctimony, at least until "conservatives" preferred presidential candidate isn't a guy who probably violated the emoluments clause, usurped Congress' constitutional power to appropriate funds for his border wall, and tried to get an electoral college win with fake electors.

Newark727 wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

Precisely right. The only "Constitutional crisis" we have in this country is not following it.

Do spare us the sanctimony, at least until "conservatives" preferred presidential candidate isn't a guy who probably violated the emoluments clause, usurped Congress' constitutional power to appropriate funds for his border wall, and tried to get an electoral college win with fake electors.

No sanctimony. Both parties have shredded the Constitution for years. And they're playing everyone by continuing to pit one citizen's party against another. Wake up.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

The Republican-controlled Senate in 2017 voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, not Harry Reid and Democrats.
Gorsuch was filbustered..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/p ... enate.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday engineered a dramatic change in how the chamber confirms Supreme Court nominations, bypassing a Democratic blockade of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch in a move that will most likely reshape both the Senate and the court.

After Democrats held together Thursday morning and filibustered President Trump’s nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for advancing Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Until the 50s, maybe later, nominees didn’t even meet the Senate Judiciary Committee, no circus at all. The present circus is all on Teddy Kennedy and, yes, Joe Biden.

The first public hearing was in 1916 for one nominee (the nominee was Jewish) . You're right about the timeline in 1955 hearings for John Marshall Harlan II did establish a regular practice of nominees testifying in person at their hearings. Congressional leaders, concerned about a runaway liberal court, called Harlan to answer questions about his judicial philosophy.

There was no “conversation” for the first hundred years of the court’s existence. The Senate voted up or down on nominees. Before 1916, the Senate Judiciary Committee met privately to consider nominees—and without the nominee. The first public hearing was in 1916 on nominee Louis Brandeis. His nomination was bitterly contested, and the committee felt the need to have a public hearing. Brandeis was Jewish and there was considerable antisemitism at the time. Brandeis also was considered radical by conservative Republicans because of his court battles with corporate executives.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/mak ... n-hearings

PhilBy wrote:

That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

That politicians asked for such a promise and that judges actually answered says all there is to say. Roe v Wade arrived at the SCOTUS via lower courts, how could one expect a judge to prematurely rule on the merits of a case they have yet to hear, the court is supposed to rule on law and the constitution, not precedent.
In my opinion, the politicians who over the decades never had the brass to actually bring a law into force are the one's to blame, the Republican strategy on abortion has been in play for decades, the Democrats just chose to ignore. Take over as many local states as possible - legislature or governorship - and pass anti-abortion laws, try to pad the high court so that when a case does arrive, they have the majority to overturn. In the USA it is said that all politics is local, so where are the democrats on the local scene?
If the SCOTUS had just declared a law unconstitutional that would be one thing, but unless I have been reading Roe wrong, they just reversed their own ruling or precedent.
Let's see how many states start passing laws to protect women, since the battle has now gone back to the states, they are free to enact their own legislation. Will be interesting to see what is done with the morning after pill, we already have some movement on the morning after pills for pregnancy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cvs-mornin ... -shortage/

par13del wrote:

If the SCOTUS had just declared a law unconstitutional that would be one thing, but unless I have been reading Roe wrong, they just reversed their own ruling or precedent.

That is the major problem here. It means that any prior SCOTUS ruling - except perhaps a few that have been explicitly turned into law by congress - is up for debate. I say explicitly because a huge part of law is interpretation. Law cannot mention all possible situations, particularly not on a constitutional level. Previous SCOTUS rulings interpreted the constitution, while the recent case used a very literal reading. "If X isn't mentioned explicitly then it isn't protected".

mxaxai wrote:

par13del wrote:

If the SCOTUS had just declared a law unconstitutional that would be one thing, but unless I have been reading Roe wrong, they just reversed their own ruling or precedent.

That is the major problem here. It means that any prior SCOTUS ruling - except perhaps a few that have been explicitly turned into law by congress - is up for debate. I say explicitly because a huge part of law is interpretation. Law cannot mention all possible situations, particularly not on a constitutional level. Previous SCOTUS rulings interpreted the constitution, while the recent case used a very literal reading. "If X isn't mentioned explicitly then it isn't protected".

As you state, the congress has turned some precedent rulings into law, just to avoid a "change of mind" if they get an activist court, let's see how this plays out in the next couple years. The Democrat party brands itself as pro-choice, they have held the reins in Washington for many years. I suspect that they will be just like the Republicans, who even before the election of Trump were adamantly opposed to Obama Care, but when they controlled all of Washington from the White House to the Out House they found other reasons to leave well enough alone.

Personally I think what SCOTUS did is wrong, not necessarily on its face, but because it's highly political. The court has undermined its supposed independence, being above everything, and instead has plunged into the swamp. Now everything will go.

With that said, I'm not a hypocrite, I think there should be gun laws to restrict the 2nd amendment to something sensible, and I think the same for abortion. It should be broadly protected by the constitution, and more narrowly defined in law.

Aesma wrote:

With that said, I'm not a hypocrite, I think there should be gun laws to restrict the 2nd amendment to something sensible, and I think the same for abortion. It should be broadly protected by the constitution, and more narrowly defined in law.

If it was not specifically mentioned in the constitution it cannot be protected by the constitution, it will need exactly what just happened, the SCOTUS interpreting something in the constitution to give validity. Laws are the jurisdiction of the legislature, not the court, so if the legislatures either at the state or federal level pass protections, whichever cases get to the court would have to be judged on whether they violate the constitution, a much harder bar to cross once the initial Roe v Wade ruling and now this reversal.
The issue today is too many people want all at once versus taking baby steps and planning for the long haul, the Republicans have been trying to pad the SCOTUS for decades just to overturn Roe v Wade, they finally succeeded, and everyone just sat back and watched the show, now we have outrage.
2nd amendment, same thing, why are US citizens not allowed to have bazooka's, mortars, cannon's, Ma Deuce or other heavy weapons, those are all weapons that can be used for self-defense and a militia, including a regulated one.
Unfortunately, the politicians and activist played around while economics got into the mix, now you have equipment suppliers piling on the pressure to continue to please their shareholders. As an example, imagine if all domestic ammo for handguns was at the 22 level, magazine capacity not limited......

PhilBy wrote:

That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

Reading AOC comments, I see.

They did no such thing. Judges in the American legal system cannot and absolutely should not ever make any statements to any audience that would even intimate let alone outright state something like that.

Unfortunately, our judicial confirmation process, thanks to our increasingly-polarized legislative branch, is being setup to back nominees into totally unacceptable corners like this.

cjg225 wrote:

PhilBy wrote:

That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

Reading AOC comments, I see.

They did no such thing. Judges in the American legal system cannot and absolutely should not ever make any statements to any audience that would even intimate let alone outright state something like that.

Unfortunately, our judicial confirmation process, thanks to our increasingly-polarized legislative branch, is being setup to back nominees into totally unacceptable corners like this.

Congress should have codified Roe. They KNEW it could be overturned, that's why theybasked about it on confirmation hearings. The judicial bravh dosen't make law, that the legislative branches job.

par13del wrote:

If it was not specifically mentioned in the constitution it cannot be protected by the constitution, it will need exactly what just happened, the SCOTUS interpreting something in the constitution to give validity.

So SCOTUS could, in keeping with that reasoning, ban most guns because they're not explicitly mentioned in the constitution ?

Aesma wrote:

So SCOTUS could, in keeping with that reasoning, ban most guns because they're not explicitly mentioned in the constitution ?

But....but...but... that's different !

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Precisely right. The only "Constitutional crisis" we have in this country is not following it.

Do spare us the sanctimony, at least until "conservatives" preferred presidential candidate isn't a guy who probably violated the emoluments clause, usurped Congress' constitutional power to appropriate funds for his border wall, and tried to get an electoral college win with fake electors.

No sanctimony. Both parties have shredded the Constitution for years. And they're playing everyone by continuing to pit one citizen's party against another. Wake up.

Partially true, the Republicans are playing it just a bit dirtier/smarter, depending on which side you are.

bpatus297 wrote:

Congress should have codified Roe. They KNEW it could be overturned, that's why theybasked about it on confirmation hearings. The judicial bravh dosen't make law, that the legislative branches job.

Which, for better or worse, rarely ever actually happens. Legislative branches at the state level tend to be a bit more nimble in this respect, but at the federal level it is a challenge to get Congress rallied to actually address what the judiciary does/says.

Where in Art 1; Section 8; does Congress have an enumerated power to control personal behavior intrastate?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where in Art 1; Section 8; does Congress have an enumerated power to control personal behavior intrastate?

Clause 18 + amendments.

Perhaps all of these discussions are an inherent weakness of the US system: many other countries have their own governance issues, but it seems their legal codes are truly less ambiguous in the key issues. For example, at present there exists a fair lot of esoteric dissection and chatter into how the 14th Amendment could be interpreted as it pertains to whom it grants rights and in what scope, ever since that tendentious Clarence Thomas penned his little excursion on Friday.

BTW, anyone even guess why he would open that Pandora's box at this time? What kind of man, who obviously must be of some intelligence and sageness given the position he attained in his career, would write what he wrote knowing the commotion the ruling itself would cause? And knowing that those who follow these matters would immediately point out the obvious (you go after what you said you wanted to go after, then you put Loving on the table). He surely must have known all that, yet he put it out there anyway. Either he is an individual nursing an extreme level of grievance against his perceived adversaries, and just wants to troll, in which case is fitness to serve should be in play, or he truly does believe literally in his assessment.

Which brings us back to Loving vs Virginia. How could same-sex partnerships be separated from interracial partnerships, if Thomas wished to revisit the former? Some suggest the idea of marriage as a mere procreation vessel, which the state would be argued to seek to protect or even promote (for its own survival), and therefore, an interracial marriage can biologically produce descendants, while a same-sex one cannot. In the traditional view, and clearly before the current technological era. But since today it is technically possible for same-sex couples to procreate, then where does that leave the law?

I think its increasingly time to admit the Constitution is outdated in many issues, and they will have to be put to popular vote and codified to end the constant ambiguities and uncertainty.

cjg225 wrote:

PhilBy wrote:

That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

Reading AOC comments, I see.

They did no such thing. Judges in the American legal system cannot and absolutely should not ever make any statements to any audience that would even intimate let alone outright state something like that.

Unfortunately, our judicial confirmation process, thanks to our increasingly-polarized legislative branch, is being setup to back nominees into totally unacceptable corners like this.

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

seb146 wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

PhilBy wrote:

That the said judges have promised in front of congress not to overturn Roe vs Wade and then do so is totally in keeping with Republican morales

Reading AOC comments, I see.

They did no such thing. Judges in the American legal system cannot and absolutely should not ever make any statements to any audience that would even intimate let alone outright state something like that.

Unfortunately, our judicial confirmation process, thanks to our increasingly-polarized legislative branch, is being setup to back nominees into totally unacceptable corners like this.

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

By that logic, our newest Associate Justice disqualified herself from being on the court because she either lied to the Senate when she said she couldn’t answer what a woman is, or she would be unable to rule on any cases involving gender, sex discrimination, etc.

CometII wrote:

Either he is an individual nursing an extreme level of grievance against his perceived adversaries, and just wants to troll, in which case is fitness to serve should be in play, or he truly does believe literally in his assessment.

Or he's simply working to reduce the rights granted by the constitution in order to give the party he's working for more options to inhibit people's personal freedom (and grant more freedom to corporations). A more literal interpretation of the law - not unlike what some religious groups practice with their texts - means fewer options for citizens to go to court against new laws, thereby formally strengthening the position of both congress and, in the absence of a functioning congress, the states.

There's another case upcoming where the court might decide to weaken their own and state courts' position. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/11068668 ... n-law-case

In the North Carolina case, the Republican-dominated state legislature is invoking it to draw maps favorable to the GOP.
In its most extreme form, the independent state legislature theory was invoked — unsuccessfully — by Trump advocates in an effort to sidestep the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election. In Arizona, for instance, some Trump supporters used the theory in calling for the decertification of the state's electors. Among those seeking decertification was Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Fascinating that the GOP isn't even denying that they're attempting extreme Gerrymandering to try and strengthen their position against the popular vote. They just don't want courts interfering in their desire for power - unless in their favor, of course.

seb146 wrote:

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

I mean, the articles you link themselves explain why there's nothing to see here, particularly the Forbes one.

And what neither one addresses is that those quotes were in the past. Any case could be overturned at any moment based on what the *current case at that moment* presents. Stare decisis is amongst many tools in deciding cases; it is a very powerful tool. But it does not instantly and automatically decide a *particular* case. No case law is ever prevented from ever being overturned. Our common law evolves constantly... sometimes more slowly than at other times. "Precedent" is even eroded; it doesn't have to be a binary situation of "good law" vs. "not good law." "Precedent" can be chipped away by a succession of cases.

Whether you agree with the decision or not, and I don't offer any opinion on whether this was the correct thing to do, but the hand-wringing around this particular part of the overall story is based pretty much on people not understanding how our legal system works.

mxaxai wrote:

CometII wrote:

Either he is an individual nursing an extreme level of grievance against his perceived adversaries, and just wants to troll, in which case is fitness to serve should be in play, or he truly does believe literally in his assessment.

Or he's simply working to reduce the rights granted by the constitution in order to give the party he's working for more options to inhibit people's personal freedom (and grant more freedom to corporations). A more literal interpretation of the law - not unlike what some religious groups practice with their texts - means fewer options for citizens to go to court against new laws, thereby formally strengthening the position of both congress and, in the absence of a functioning congress, the states.

And why would he think the "inhibition" of personal freedoms would circumvent issues of skin-color?

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

If it was not specifically mentioned in the constitution it cannot be protected by the constitution, it will need exactly what just happened, the SCOTUS interpreting something in the constitution to give validity.

So SCOTUS could, in keeping with that reasoning, ban most guns because they're not explicitly mentioned in the constitution ?

Well it does say a well armed militia, unless you think they meant actual arms.....with wrist included.....

seb146 wrote:

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

If my understanding of the legal / justice system is correct, they are correct, it was COURT PRECEDENT, to me that means in any case involving the issue the reasoning of the court would continue. Unfortunately, that does not make it law, court precedents at local and federal level have been overturned before, as times change and the persons on the court change.
The legislative branch is running for cover on this issue, the Republicans went to state legislatures to get it overturned and the Dems waffled in Washington, let's see if they ride the wave and get something passed as was done with Obama Care, the time is ripe if the majority of the citizens are in favor, those who resist can be changed in the fall.

par13del wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

If my understanding of the legal / justice system is correct, they are correct, it was COURT PRECEDENT, to me that means in any case involving the issue the reasoning of the court would continue. Unfortunately, that does not make it law, court precedents at local and federal level have been overturned before, as times change and the persons on the court change.
The legislative branch is running for cover on this issue, the Republicans went to state legislatures to get it overturned and the Dems waffled in Washington, let's see if they ride the wave and get something passed as was done with Obama Care, the time is ripe if the majority of the citizens are in favor, those who resist can be changed in the fall.

The Supreme Court decided, in 1973, that abortion must be available to every woman. That is settled law, according to Goursich and Kavanaugh. But, we hear all the time from the right how we can not overturn any gun related cases because they are settled law.

Part of the problem with restoring Roe is the state legislatures themselves. Many right wing extremist legislatures are making it impossible for anyone else to win. The Supreme Court decided that the Louisiana districting map, which was found by lower courts to be based on racism, was perfectly fine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sup ... 022-06-28/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/just ... ights-act/

Texas has made it harder for people in Democratic majority areas to vote

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/27/10828213 ... used-voter
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reality ... d=83027396

And Republicans were completely against the latest Voting Rights Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... use-bill/4
https://www.hrc.org/resources/voting-ri ... cement-act

This after right wing extremists on the bench decided not all Americans should be voting. We have begun our slide into fascism.

NIKV69 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is no longer a filibuster on Judicial nominees, that ended during Harry Reid's term as majority senate leader, all recent appointees have been confirmed without a filibuster (less than 60 votes). So its not going to happen.

Yep and the term "constitutional crisis" is just another propaganda term recited by the media in an attempt to fear monger.

There’s plenty to fear if you’re lgbtq or any other minority in this country with the current SCOTUS.

seb146 wrote:

par13del wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Both Goursich and Kavanaugh, under oath during confirmation hearings, said Roe sets court precedent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... cd58365420
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna35246

According to both, Roe was settled law. That's where the "perjury" part comes in.

If my understanding of the legal / justice system is correct, they are correct, it was COURT PRECEDENT, to me that means in any case involving the issue the reasoning of the court would continue. Unfortunately, that does not make it law, court precedents at local and federal level have been overturned before, as times change and the persons on the court change.
The legislative branch is running for cover on this issue, the Republicans went to state legislatures to get it overturned and the Dems waffled in Washington, let's see if they ride the wave and get something passed as was done with Obama Care, the time is ripe if the majority of the citizens are in favor, those who resist can be changed in the fall.

The Supreme Court decided, in 1973, that abortion must be available to every woman. That is settled law, according to Goursich and Kavanaugh. But, we hear all the time from the right how we can not overturn any gun related cases because they are settled law.

Part of the problem with restoring Roe is the state legislatures themselves. Many right wing extremist legislatures are making it impossible for anyone else to win. The Supreme Court decided that the Louisiana districting map, which was found by lower courts to be based on racism, was perfectly fine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sup ... 022-06-28/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/just ... ights-act/

Texas has made it harder for people in Democratic majority areas to vote

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/27/10828213 ... used-voter
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reality ... d=83027396

And Republicans were completely against the latest Voting Rights Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... use-bill/4
https://www.hrc.org/resources/voting-ri ... cement-act

This after right wing extremists on the bench decided not all Americans should be voting. We have begun our slide into fascism.

Democrats seem quite impotent and weak, while the right continues full steam ahead. How the hell do we stop this? Maybe it’s time for the Democrats to play dirty and stop this whole “when they go low we go high” nonsense which clearly isn’t working.

CitizenJustin wrote:

seb146 wrote:

par13del wrote:

If my understanding of the legal / justice system is correct, they are correct, it was COURT PRECEDENT, to me that means in any case involving the issue the reasoning of the court would continue. Unfortunately, that does not make it law, court precedents at local and federal level have been overturned before, as times change and the persons on the court change.
The legislative branch is running for cover on this issue, the Republicans went to state legislatures to get it overturned and the Dems waffled in Washington, let's see if they ride the wave and get something passed as was done with Obama Care, the time is ripe if the majority of the citizens are in favor, those who resist can be changed in the fall.

The Supreme Court decided, in 1973, that abortion must be available to every woman. That is settled law, according to Goursich and Kavanaugh. But, we hear all the time from the right how we can not overturn any gun related cases because they are settled law.

Part of the problem with restoring Roe is the state legislatures themselves. Many right wing extremist legislatures are making it impossible for anyone else to win. The Supreme Court decided that the Louisiana districting map, which was found by lower courts to be based on racism, was perfectly fine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sup ... 022-06-28/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/just ... ights-act/

Texas has made it harder for people in Democratic majority areas to vote

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/27/10828213 ... used-voter
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reality ... d=83027396

And Republicans were completely against the latest Voting Rights Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... use-bill/4
https://www.hrc.org/resources/voting-ri ... cement-act

This after right wing extremists on the bench decided not all Americans should be voting. We have begun our slide into fascism.

Democrats seem quite impotent and weak, while the right continues full steam ahead. How the hell do we stop this? Maybe it’s time for the Democrats to play dirty and stop this whole “when they go low we go high” nonsense which clearly isn’t working.

Pelosi and Harris should attempt a coup. Then, we can see the full display of the right's double standards. But, that would never happen because Harris and Pelosi actually believe in the oath they took to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.