I mean, Roe was pretty detached from the constitution. The penumbra and emanation logic was never been used again.

At least this case is directly about elections, something that is addressed by the text.

Rock on.

[removed]

Certainly - not that the right to vote shouldn't be vigorously defended, it should, but like any other right it was won in the streets first. I don't fault anyone for choosing to disengage, but we're only powerful organized and fighting. Half the work of getting that done is restoring hope in the doing of it.

Thank you and good luck!

Happy Holidays!

[removed]

Still no disagreement. My only response to this point is that people use this particular observation mainly against Democrats as well. "Both parties suck so why should I bother." True enough except one of those parties will do the bare minimum to keep things roughly how they are while the other one will literally turn back all progress made in the last 200+ years. I'll still stick up for the Democrats then, while urging people for more, because we have a better chance to actually progress one day from where we are now rather than from a degrading society caused by Republican control.

Voting is for sure important but it's the bare minimum to get the bare minimum results. Without massive change in driving progressive policies at a very wide grass-roots level we will eventually be lost. Bernie was one person who pushed the Democrats wildly left compared to where they were, but he isn't enough and we won't just stumble into two or three more of him by luck alone.

I mean, any bill could be one of the ones that passes with a simple majority if Democrats would bother to get rid of the filibuster with the majority they do have, which they could if they wanted to enforce any kind of party discipline in favor of the average American - who supports progressive things like single payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, and abortion rights regardless of party affiliation. There's no excuse for a party to run on flipping both houses, do it, and then spend two years conceding on every issue that was portrayed as contingent on such a victory.

It's true - we don't live in a functioning democracy - but it's not because one or another ruling-class party is prevented from carrying out their stated agenda. It's because they're both complicit in acting against popular will.

You aren't wrong, it just hasn't worked super well in the past. Tell me if I am wrong - they would need a full majority in the Senate. If everything was included in one bill, it would have met the same fate as the second bill with sick days. This isn't one of the kinds that can be passed with a simple majority?

So then the bill fails to pass and everyone piles it on the Democrats. Whenever that's happened in the past, like Obama era debt ceiling bullshit, it didn't really turn out how logical people would have expected it should have. Republicans then won't budge because they'd rather destroy America then give hard-working people their due, then don't have any actual platform so they're immune to criticism anyway, and Democrats are accused of failing to govern. Meanwhile the economic fallout is supposedly catastrophic.

In a functioning democracy, Democrats should be able to full court press this and grind the fucking rich overlords into the ground. But they can barely get a little aggressive before popular opinion shifts against them, because for some reason a huge percent of our population expects them to be honorable and act like adults, the Republicans are absolutely never held to task for their bullshit stunts, and then the Democrats get slammed (while also doing their own damn best go crush the progressive wing, thanks JJ). And the dumbass outrage voters sit out the election cycle and then we have an overwhelmingly illegitimate supreme court that fucks us even harder for an entire generation.

I personally would love nothing more than to see the Democrats rake the railway over the fucking coals and give the workers everything they asked for and then 100% more that they didn't even have the hope to imagine much less request.

Edit: the same fate, not the same "'date."

Oh yea, an example I heard recently was regarding a Oklahoma state supreme court case of the execution of Clayton Lockett. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma had issued a stay of execution (since the state has been unable to obtain the necessary drugs for a lethal injection and was planning to use an untested cocktail that would ultimately end up torturing him for 40 something minutes until he died) and the Governor issued and executive order that the execution would continue and the legislature began impeachment proceedings on the justices until they reversed the stay.

Just something to consider when the republicans eventually say "You can't just not listen to what the Supreme Court says!!"

[removed]

This. If democracy survives, the Roberts Court will go down in history as the most illegimate, corrupt court ever.

And I HATE that Roberts thinks the issue is the Roe decision and that we just don't like it. BULL. I have been a SCOTUS fan for years, despite numerous rulings I didn't like. Bush v. Gore, anyone?

This court is illegimate because:

• Roberts shows no leadership. Leaks anyone?
• Three justices were appointed by someone who was installed by a foreign government and did not win the majority of the popular vote
• Justices leak regularly and give politicwl speeches
• One justice's wife was part of a plan to overturn a free and fair election, and he didn't bother to recuse himself from related cases.
• Even after all of this, Roberts doesn't see a need for a SCOTUS code of ethics.

Roberts, if you don't see the corruption in this, you are blind.

Probably the most famous example was President Andrew Jackson just completely ignoring a Supreme Court decision in the 1830s regarding Cherokee sovereignty against the state of Georgia. He's alleged to have responded to the ruling by saying, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Whether he said those words or not, that was definitely his sentiment, and he simply refused to enforce the Court's decision.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Worcester-v-Georgia

During your research, have you personally come across any strange experiences? And how do you deal with naysayers, and have you had any bad experiences with them?

Have you encountered any popular conspiracy theory that turns out to actually be pretty fact-based?

Joe Biden can tell them to go fuck themselves.

I mean, did you read any of the Roe opinion?

They super obviously don’t give a shit about precedent anymore and have no compunctions about making shit up out of whole cloth.

I suggest doing some research on “The Federalist Society”. That’s where the theory originated and that’s where all the conservative judges originate. There’s has been a concerted effort for 40+ years by the republicans and the federalist society to stack the courts with their judges. Remember, every single conservative judge said that Roe was “settled law” before they were appointed. They have no problems lying about their views as long as it gets them to power.

Great answer, but I feel like I’ve seen a few real-time examples of core devotees seeing this coming from a distance and using this as the inverse of “lack of proof IS proof” trope. They are hyper aware of anything that’s taking attention away from their cult and say “see, they know were onto them, so they’re trying to distract us with staged events that take the wind out of our sails and make us look silly”

So do you actually tackle real conspiracies or just easily disproven straw man examples?

Suppose a large natural disaster hit a state on election day and caused a large number of people to not be able to vote. Is there a constitutional method to right that wrong and how does this "independent legislature theory" play into that?

[removed]

[removed]

Does the Electoral Count Reform bill that's likely to pass during the lame duck address and fix any of this?

Why would Trump try to win another election, he's worse than Hitler right? The mail in ballots are a sure way to fraud the election. Every voter should be supposed to vote in person, excluding the ones that are disabled and cannot move. Are the democrats really that desperate to keep power?