Morally, it should not be this way, of course. And I truly hope the voters of Arizona nuke the legislature and court system that let this happen, and applaud both the AG and Governor. But legally, their ruling is correct.
It is not a correct interpretation of events, legally. This supposed law was before Arizona was a state, before its state constitution. It should have no merit at all, legally. If one is going to talk legally
Ta, Dok. Many of my fellow Wonketteers are aware of my history with voting, but others don't know. When I was 15 and 16 I carried petitions door-to-door to get 18-year-olds the right to vote. Yes, we used the Vietnam war as our rallying cry (old enough to fight, old enough to vote), and succeeded. I turned 18 in 1972, the first year 18-year-olds could vote. I have voted in EVERY D primary and EVERY general, every year since. I wish my fellow Americans took voting as seriously as do I.
I think people place too much importance on the Supreme Court. Of the thousands of requests received, they only hear less than a hundred cases per year. The majority of their decisions are unanimous, because they only hear a case if they have already perceived an error in law made by a lower court. The three Supreme Court Justices that Trump was able to appoint will be far less impactful than the hundreds of lower court judges he was able to appoint. some of whom are terribly biased or outright unqualified.
Shelby County v. Holder. Citizens United v. FEC. Buckley v. Valeo. Bowers v. Hardwick. Bush v. Gore. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. I could go on. People whose rights to an equal education, to their own medical decisions, to love whom they love, to keep untracked and unidentified political contributions from corrupting our politics--they can have their lives wrecked. Those who downplay this tend to be wealthier, white, and male. If they don't feel the effects of bad SCOTUS decisions, they tend to start talking "balls and strikes" or worse. Sure, bad judges appointed up and down the judicial branch are bad, not just because they can be appointed to higher positions in the courts or they make bad law. But the SCOTUS is supposed to be the final decision for possibly decades. Who reins them in? They seem to be unaccountable. It would take a big shift in the Senate and perhaps all of Congress to impeach those judges who are clearly violating ethics rules, let alone abiding by any only selectively. If they ignore parts of the Constitution and its Amendments, perhaps we should find ways to ignore them? How does that stick? NO, this is a really bad situation we have here in the USA.
Absolutely. The lower courts do matter, though I'd argue not as much. At least in that case, the nutjobs are diluted among hundreds of judges and there are generally higher levels that can overturn the craziest bullshit (sometimes). SCOTUS only has 9 people, 6 of whom are crazy assholes, and there are no higher courts after them. Given their lifetime appointments, we could be stuck with them for decades.
With their reactionary position on so many issues and continued ardent support of Donald Trump, The GOP has to be alienating millions of voters. They've become the "Old Time
Republicans seem to be of the opinion that not only are women second class citizens but that every man in America is an outright Chauvinist gun nut. Pretty sure they are missing the call. at least I hope so.
"never mind the weird New York Times claim that the ladies will all forget by November." NPR had some woman on yesterday saying the same thing about the abortion issue, she said it didn't look like the issue was moving the needle the way some anticipated. Oh really, most gals are OK with being second class citizens whose wombs belong to the state? See you in November.
Since they seem to have a fondness for 19th century law, we should insist that they re-instate Wyatt Earp's "no guns in town" rule at least for the City of Tombstone if not State wide. Show them that Liberals might find some 19th century laws appealing too.
Steve Coogan's character from Hamlet 2: "Chuy, you're going to have a magical life. Because no matter where you go, it'll always be better than Tucson."
Once again, the lesson that liberals refuse to learn: Anyone who thinks government should be "neutral" is going to be screwed by those who don't. Therefore, pack the courts with leftists, lest the right packs the courts. Censor bigots, lest bigots censor you. Arrest fascists, lest fascists arrest you.
There can NEVER be peaceful co-existence between those who want progress and those who want tradition or are "undecided."
So, a woman has to adhere to a law from the 1860s when considering her personal health care, but gun-humpers aren't restricted to firearms that were available when the Second Amendment™ was drafted. Weird!
Contrary to NRA mythology many localities had firearms restrictions in the 19th century Most everybody is familiar with Wyatt Earp's "No guns in town" rule, attempted enforcement of which led to the famous "Gunfight at the OK corral". However, he was not the only one. It was illegal to carry firearms within the city limits in many places. Even when I was a child in the 1950s, seeing someone walking down the street with a pistol on his hip or under his jacket would have resulted in an immediate call to the police, who would have detained, disarmed and charged the ahole post haste,
In the mid 1970s I worked for an appliance and TV/.radio retailer. Often I would close the store and take the sometimes substantial cash deposit io the night drop box at the bank. I didn't think it necessary, but the owner wanted me to be armed. Getting the permit to carry that snub nosed .38 was not an easy task There was first a written application and background check That was followed by a 30 minute personal interview by the county Sherriff. The owner of the store advised me that I should get a haircut before sitting down with the sheriff. "He's not going to pass you if you go in there looking like a hippie. I agreed to a "style cut" no way was I getting a buzz job. The interview lasted a bit longer than I anticipated. the Sheriff really wasn't such a bad guy and we had a very pleasant conversation about gun safety and my responsibilities as a holder of a concealed carry permit He was pleased that I wasn't a "gun illiterate", being very familiar with long guns but not pistols. I was awarded the permit with very explicit instruction of it's purpose and god forbid use.. It was expected that the only time I would be carrying was during my night time trips to the bank. I was to return to the store, unload the pistol and lock it in the safe upon conclusion of my duties. Further, the only place the permit was valid was in the issuing county. He further admonished me saying that if he found me not following his personal instruction to the letter he would make my life rather unpleasant
I realize this is rather lengthy. However, as a responsible gun owner, I'm always trying to educate people and dispel the misinformation put out by the NRA. Most of what they say is total bullshit. There was no time in our history where everybody walked around freely carrying firearms. I am very much in favor of strict "gun owner" regulation, and registration of all firearms. the number of Americans killed each year by the careless proliferation of firearms is absolutely appalling.
So weird. Weird in that weird way that makes me want to rip Republicans tongues out of their mouths and transplant them further south on their own bodies. With votes. Of course.
“By the time Donald Trump's first term was over, he had cemented his place as the most anti-abortion president in U.S. history. Now, facing political blowback, he’s trying to change that reputation. Our reporter explains the pivot on “The Daily.””
Fuck "The Daily" and their stilted, overly-dramatic bullshit. They did a story a few weeks ago about "Biden's dementia," and I swore off that show forever.
wise choice. against my better judgement i listened to the Trump pivot story. it was absolute breathless bullshit with trailing questions suggesting the electorate of the future is open to anything. spoiler alert (and thanks AZ SCOTUS): this issue is not going away and Trump owns it.
(i only listened b/c i was saving Pod Save the World and Cleanup on Aisle 45 for my bike ride...)
So what you're saying is, Democrats need to get in on this court packing thing.
zero liberals
But Dems always need to appoint centrics because reasons
Totes fine for Politico to talk about zero liberals and ignore the entire what, no centrics? Theme
EH look. Maybe actually read the ruling here, because it's the correct interpretation of events, legally, as they exist in Arizona today. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d011f2461ef65f0c/d2a77584-full.pdf
Morally, it should not be this way, of course. And I truly hope the voters of Arizona nuke the legislature and court system that let this happen, and applaud both the AG and Governor. But legally, their ruling is correct.
It is not a correct interpretation of events, legally. This supposed law was before Arizona was a state, before its state constitution. It should have no merit at all, legally. If one is going to talk legally
A literal example of the banality of evil.
Ta, Dok. Many of my fellow Wonketteers are aware of my history with voting, but others don't know. When I was 15 and 16 I carried petitions door-to-door to get 18-year-olds the right to vote. Yes, we used the Vietnam war as our rallying cry (old enough to fight, old enough to vote), and succeeded. I turned 18 in 1972, the first year 18-year-olds could vote. I have voted in EVERY D primary and EVERY general, every year since. I wish my fellow Americans took voting as seriously as do I.
And yet calls for expanding the U.S. Supreme Court are reviled by republicans.
I think people place too much importance on the Supreme Court. Of the thousands of requests received, they only hear less than a hundred cases per year. The majority of their decisions are unanimous, because they only hear a case if they have already perceived an error in law made by a lower court. The three Supreme Court Justices that Trump was able to appoint will be far less impactful than the hundreds of lower court judges he was able to appoint. some of whom are terribly biased or outright unqualified.
Shelby County v. Holder. Citizens United v. FEC. Buckley v. Valeo. Bowers v. Hardwick. Bush v. Gore. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. I could go on. People whose rights to an equal education, to their own medical decisions, to love whom they love, to keep untracked and unidentified political contributions from corrupting our politics--they can have their lives wrecked. Those who downplay this tend to be wealthier, white, and male. If they don't feel the effects of bad SCOTUS decisions, they tend to start talking "balls and strikes" or worse. Sure, bad judges appointed up and down the judicial branch are bad, not just because they can be appointed to higher positions in the courts or they make bad law. But the SCOTUS is supposed to be the final decision for possibly decades. Who reins them in? They seem to be unaccountable. It would take a big shift in the Senate and perhaps all of Congress to impeach those judges who are clearly violating ethics rules, let alone abiding by any only selectively. If they ignore parts of the Constitution and its Amendments, perhaps we should find ways to ignore them? How does that stick? NO, this is a really bad situation we have here in the USA.
Absolutely. The lower courts do matter, though I'd argue not as much. At least in that case, the nutjobs are diluted among hundreds of judges and there are generally higher levels that can overturn the craziest bullshit (sometimes). SCOTUS only has 9 people, 6 of whom are crazy assholes, and there are no higher courts after them. Given their lifetime appointments, we could be stuck with them for decades.
Except that the SCOTUS is the one who takes away our rights, and lets republican states decide what we can do with our bodies and our love lives.
I mean, pretty important, to anyone not a straight cis white guy in a liberal haven
That's different, because that would affect them negatively!
With their reactionary position on so many issues and continued ardent support of Donald Trump, The GOP has to be alienating millions of voters. They've become the "Old Time
Criminal Crackpot Party"
Which evidently suits a frightening number of our fellow citizens! "He's criming for ME!"
True, but hopefully not enough to win elections other than local races
Republicans seem to be of the opinion that not only are women second class citizens but that every man in America is an outright Chauvinist gun nut. Pretty sure they are missing the call. at least I hope so.
"never mind the weird New York Times claim that the ladies will all forget by November." NPR had some woman on yesterday saying the same thing about the abortion issue, she said it didn't look like the issue was moving the needle the way some anticipated. Oh really, most gals are OK with being second class citizens whose wombs belong to the state? See you in November.
Any man with half a brain not located below the waist should likewise find this offensive. I certainly do
Since they seem to have a fondness for 19th century law, we should insist that they re-instate Wyatt Earp's "no guns in town" rule at least for the City of Tombstone if not State wide. Show them that Liberals might find some 19th century laws appealing too.
Also hilarious: this extremist ruling all but guarantees a huge turnout by pissed-off Arizona voters in November, on election day.
Oh, you’ve been to Phoenix!
Steve Coogan's character from Hamlet 2: "Chuy, you're going to have a magical life. Because no matter where you go, it'll always be better than Tucson."
Not if Chuy goes to Phoenix...
Ha ha!
Once again, the lesson that liberals refuse to learn: Anyone who thinks government should be "neutral" is going to be screwed by those who don't. Therefore, pack the courts with leftists, lest the right packs the courts. Censor bigots, lest bigots censor you. Arrest fascists, lest fascists arrest you.
There can NEVER be peaceful co-existence between those who want progress and those who want tradition or are "undecided."
I tried to explain this to Hillary hating Jill Stein weirdos but I apparently failed.
They only want "tradition," because in this country, tradition = racism, bigotry, and control.
So, a woman has to adhere to a law from the 1860s when considering her personal health care, but gun-humpers aren't restricted to firearms that were available when the Second Amendment™ was drafted. Weird!
Contrary to NRA mythology many localities had firearms restrictions in the 19th century Most everybody is familiar with Wyatt Earp's "No guns in town" rule, attempted enforcement of which led to the famous "Gunfight at the OK corral". However, he was not the only one. It was illegal to carry firearms within the city limits in many places. Even when I was a child in the 1950s, seeing someone walking down the street with a pistol on his hip or under his jacket would have resulted in an immediate call to the police, who would have detained, disarmed and charged the ahole post haste,
In the mid 1970s I worked for an appliance and TV/.radio retailer. Often I would close the store and take the sometimes substantial cash deposit io the night drop box at the bank. I didn't think it necessary, but the owner wanted me to be armed. Getting the permit to carry that snub nosed .38 was not an easy task There was first a written application and background check That was followed by a 30 minute personal interview by the county Sherriff. The owner of the store advised me that I should get a haircut before sitting down with the sheriff. "He's not going to pass you if you go in there looking like a hippie. I agreed to a "style cut" no way was I getting a buzz job. The interview lasted a bit longer than I anticipated. the Sheriff really wasn't such a bad guy and we had a very pleasant conversation about gun safety and my responsibilities as a holder of a concealed carry permit He was pleased that I wasn't a "gun illiterate", being very familiar with long guns but not pistols. I was awarded the permit with very explicit instruction of it's purpose and god forbid use.. It was expected that the only time I would be carrying was during my night time trips to the bank. I was to return to the store, unload the pistol and lock it in the safe upon conclusion of my duties. Further, the only place the permit was valid was in the issuing county. He further admonished me saying that if he found me not following his personal instruction to the letter he would make my life rather unpleasant
I realize this is rather lengthy. However, as a responsible gun owner, I'm always trying to educate people and dispel the misinformation put out by the NRA. Most of what they say is total bullshit. There was no time in our history where everybody walked around freely carrying firearms. I am very much in favor of strict "gun owner" regulation, and registration of all firearms. the number of Americans killed each year by the careless proliferation of firearms is absolutely appalling.
There's a special place in hell for Wayne LaPierre.
If only Hell existed.
He’ll have to wear suits from Costco.
Ill-fitting. Unspeakable cruelty!
I'm not sure if even Satan would accept him or Trump
I vote that the entire Howell Law has to go into effect. None of this Cherry picking BS!
https://bsky.app/profile/djlavoie.bsky.social/post/3kpq2adipp622
Amen.
So weird. Weird in that weird way that makes me want to rip Republicans tongues out of their mouths and transplant them further south on their own bodies. With votes. Of course.
Did the 1864 law say anything about sex shooters?
I happily signed that petition to get abortion rights on the ballot. Let's go, AZ! Let's get out of the dark ages the magats want us to stay in.
Also NYT, lol on twitter
“By the time Donald Trump's first term was over, he had cemented his place as the most anti-abortion president in U.S. history. Now, facing political blowback, he’s trying to change that reputation. Our reporter explains the pivot on “The Daily.””
What’s to explain? He’s a shit talking con man.
Fuck "The Daily" and their stilted, overly-dramatic bullshit. They did a story a few weeks ago about "Biden's dementia," and I swore off that show forever.
wise choice. against my better judgement i listened to the Trump pivot story. it was absolute breathless bullshit with trailing questions suggesting the electorate of the future is open to anything. spoiler alert (and thanks AZ SCOTUS): this issue is not going away and Trump owns it.
(i only listened b/c i was saving Pod Save the World and Cleanup on Aisle 45 for my bike ride...)
Donald Trump could get an abortion in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his fanatical religious zealot supporters would STILL support him.
Paid for abortions for his mistresses/rape victims as well as those of his two adult sons.
His red tie, like a mighty sail, goes wherever the winds of the Republican establishment blow him.