Slog AM: Seattle City Council Approves Office of Employee Ombud, Brett Kavanaugh Sides With Liberal Justices?

Comments

1

Do you know the significance of the Supreme Court deciding to take a pass on the case? Does it mean a favorable lower court decision stands? Feels like all the progressive wins out of the supreme court these days is based on what they choose not to act on, rather than decisive decisions furthering progressive values. Which of course is just about the best we can hope for, for a decade or so with the current stack. But hey, maybe Kavanaugh is a sleeper lib.

4

If people actually understood what it is the SCOTUS actually does, they would be a lot less surprised. This case, like about 80% of the cases brought before it, basically boils down to: "who has the authority to decide/enforce X, Y or Z?" - not whether X, Y or Z is right or wrong. And you know who was among the #1 proponents of that literal, traditionalist approach? Get ready to clutch your pearls, progressives - Antonin Scalia. The guy you spent decades painting as a mustache twirling villain.

Good thing we had to try and tar Kavanaugh as the leader of an underground high school gang rape ring during his confirmation hearings on the off chance he might one day be unfair to Planned Parenthood.

5

I guess seeing someone think for themselves and act on their own conscience instead of mindlessly regurgitating party lines and slogans is "confusing" to some people.

6

Oh oh...what to do when the gang rapist defies the liberal narrative...does not compute does not compute!!!

Or maybe, just maybe...people are far more complicated than a simple left/right narrative?

7

@2-6:

Q: How are an alcoholic former frat-boy rapist and a stopped clock the same?

8

The SCOTUS decision is a win for PP for now. It's not the case SCOTUS wants to hear regarding abortion. They aren't interested in having a decision on record as to how abortion can be funded. They want to hear the case that challenges the legality of abortion outright and they want to be able to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is no fucking way Kavanaugh is a sleeper lib and anyone who believes that is fooling themselves, dangerously so.

9

Yes, unfortunately xina @ 8 is right. Kavanaugh and co. are only waiting for a clear cut decisive case to ban abortion.
Ever angry Clarence Thomas is just too stupid figure it out. Speaking of, the real surprise was that he actually wrote something, which he seldom does despite his 27 years (!) tenure.

10

You should all stop worrying about Roe vs Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court. Despite appearances, most Republicans are just fine with abortions.

11

@10 only for their mistresses, not for their wives.

The takes on this news story are the "it snowed in South Carolina, where is your global warming now, libs?" of Supreme Court journalism.

13

@12:

Well, since you've gone down that road, whatabout those not yet even conceived - today? By your logic, why is it okay to unload your spunk in a wad of tissue paper, old gym sock, or inside a latex sheath, instead of using it explicitly for the purpose of impregnating a female incuba - er, woman? Why are you murdering untold millions of your own progeny instead of "being fruitful and multiplying", as Yahweh commanded?

14

My forecast was that Kavanaugh would compromise on abortion ("see, he isn't so bad. Democrats are alarmists" like many comments above) but mostly position himself to the right of Genghis Khan on money in politics, labor rights, etc (enforcing the rule of oligarchs)

16

I’ve said it before, but we should name it Geico Field if they agree to take those god damn planes out of our airspace.

17

@14 Also to ponder: the legitimacy of the SC has been badly damaged by the Republican power grab. People in control would rather keep their powder dry for issues they really care about (like protecting the interests of their sponsors) rather than use it against abortion and spark a women's insurgency.

18

@15:

Figures. You complain incessantly about the financial "sacrifice" you make, then turn around and in the next breath advocate for spending who knows how much to incarcerate people for being homeless. So, that would be a financial "sacrifice" you would support?

19

@12
The difference is public domain vs. personal choices.
Pollution affects everyone. As tough as it may be, someone deciding not to have a baby is their business.
I suspect many anti-abortionists don’t really care for the babies to begin with, it’s just another way to control women’s bodies and sexuality.

21

John Roberts isn't a non-partisan, but it appears to me that he is interested in good law over his party allegiances. That's nice. Maybe Kavanaugh is the same in that regard?

24

@ 18
This is why jail is such a big business, privatized and all. The three-strikes you’re jailed for life was passed in order ensure occupancy. Apparently jail is cheaper than education.

Factsie- “deflect and obfuscate”?

25

@15, 23,

From what you wrote, it appears you know very, very little about homelessness.

Best way to end homelessness is to give them homes. Then tackle the problems that led to homelessness after.

It's cheaper to simply give the homeless a house than it is to try to care for them in other ways.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utahs-strategy-homeless-give-them-homes-n352966

26

@22 No it mustn't. As long as roughly 1/2 the human species is obligated to carry 'those conceived' and all the expenses and health risks that go along with it, while also giving them the right to self-determination and the expectation that they are productive members of society, their rights - those who are fully actualized humans who have exited the womb - take precedent over those of the unborn. At minimum you have to allow that carrying a child to term would be a death sentence for a small but not insignificant percentage of women. If we have a duty to protect it would be applicable to their lives, too.

Not sure what this has to do with global warming though. You are comparing the absolute right of any given individual to be born, regardless of its obligatory impact and potential harm on the lives of others, to that of an entire planet and all the organisms it hosts to continue to exist (and frankly I have no idea what prompted this or what your point is or why i'm bothering responding to you at all). There is probably a latin name for this kind of logical fallacy, or maybe there isn't because it's completely absurd.

27

@23:

"Every sane adult understands..."

And speaking of bullshit:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/do-homeless-people-come-to-seattle-for-help/

29

@28:

So, you don't agree with the conclusions, but you can't independently refute them, duly noted.