Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Lying Liars

Comments

1

When Jesus wrote the Constitution he said fags must die and women are brood mares. This is white christian america! Get with it!

2

Another travesty we can lay at the feet of Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP who held up a Supreme Court appointment until their festering pustule of a candidate was seated in the big chair, for all the good that "I told you so" does us.

3

Oops, I meant to say another two travesties.

4

Katie, you completely missed the ruling where the court officially changed the name of The United States of America to The Republic of Gilead.

5

I hate to say it but if the CA law says that they have to advertise where you can go for abortion services then I agree that's probably unconstitutional. Why doesn't CA make a law saying you can't fucking lie?

6

The Supreme Court should simply republish Citizens United in order to finish flushing what’s left of their reputation down the shitter.

7

When is is nightmare going to end?

8

Speaking of getting out and Voting, Katie, wouldja mind, doing an article on the vulnerabilities of Voting Machines?

You do, and I'll Vote for you.

9

Holy fucking shit, true Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has my deepest heartfelt sympathy.

10

Hmmm I'm not sure how I want the Supreme Court to actually rule.

While Trump's immigration policy is obviously an extension of racist ideology and in no part a desire to keep American safer, I don't know that, once policy ink hits the paper, if motivations should matter. This is the basis for "disparate impacts" theology, which essentially says that, even if well-intentioned, if a law has negative impacts on specific groups (generally protected classes but I'm not sure that's a requirement), then it can be invalidated. If we're going to argue that intent is meaningful, I don't see how disparate impacts as a legal concept can survive. It won't matter if some law is racist or sexist etc, all that will matter is if the framers intended it to be racist and sexist. And that's a pretty scary place. We see this already with the "sincerely held religious beliefs" stance the courts have upheld.

Do you really want more?

Generally speaking, here's how I analyze this kind of thing: These 'new' tools - In the hands of someone who hated me, would the laws protect me from unfair treatment? If the answer is yes, then we can debate an issue on the merits. Maybe this tax plan is a good idea or a bad idea. But if the answer is no, then IMO the merits barely matter except in some pretty edge scenarios.

So like, is it OK to punch Nazis? Well, it's not OK to punch me, so no, you should not punch a nazi or anyone else. Is it OK to harass someone to the point where they cannot take advantage of public accommodations? Well, my dad was a civil rights protester and every 2nd grader knows the answer to that question (for those of you who like masturbating in public: no, it's not ok).

Basically, Golden Rule. I strongly dislike this new... Pyrite Rule: "Do unto others as they have done upon you*" (and by "you", we mean, someone who is politically convenient to use as a mascot, ideally someone who you could freely victimize if you chose to)