457 Comments
User's avatar
kmblue187's avatar

They finally got me. The day of this decision, I stopped looking at the news for two days, they broke me. But I'm back now, and fuck the decision and cheers to Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, as you said, the three sane members of the Court. Special notice to Thomas and Alito, who get hard-ons every time they win a case like this.

Steve Haddon's avatar

Brit here. I don't know what puzzles me most:

- people of colour voting for for a racist psychopath

- people who believed the BS about lower grocery prices

- Christians voting for a vile and unholy POS

- people staying home, rather than voting for a black woman

There's no excuse. It's not like there hadn't already been a "season one". As the old saying goes: "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me."

Anyway, the US is getting what it voted for... Gilead.

Blessed be the fruit!

Fifth Dentist's avatar

The sad thing is that any undistinguished, inexperienced, half-bright white man probably would have won the election over PAB.

Being a black woman easily cost Harris enough votes to have won in a sane, non-racist country.

Zap's avatar

Brit here too. Not everyone in the USA voted for the satsuma tsunami.

Steve Haddon's avatar

Yeah, I know. But it's not like the people who voted for him are up in arms, protesting at what he's doing. I reckon a good proportion of them are all in on the madness. "Anything to own the libs" seems to be their thinking.

Hank Napkin's avatar

As the nation's highest ranking Anchor Baby what does Marco Rubio think?

jltympanum's avatar

Prior to the Civil War we had free states and slave states. Now we have birthright states and birthwrong states.

Enter Ranting's avatar

President Pete or President AOC is gonna get the same treatment.

Kara Mustafa's avatar

Albert Camus on the return of fascism:

“And, indeed, as he listened to the cries of joy rising from the town, Rieux remembered that such joy is always imperiled. He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.”

The Plague

Tessie's avatar

"Instead, the Gang of Six prohibited federal judges from issuing “universal injunctions” (also called “nationwide injunctions”) that prevent the executive branch from enforcing laws or policies across the USA."

`

Including Matthew Cockbite and his attempts to ban mifepristone [sp?]?

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/07/texas-abortion-drugs-fda-ruling/

Cryny's avatar

I'm sure they'll be able to find an exception for him.

"M"'s avatar

I think we're gonna need to keep asking that question to force the national press to pay attention

ames's avatar

Our dream of equality and freedom was so brief. We have to keep fighting. But from an LGBTQ perspective, one history of our community. It was always hard: https://www.lesliefeinberg.net/ download and learn. 🤘🖕🇺🇲

Dudley Didwrong's avatar

Franklin warned us way back then: "A republic--if you can keep it." It's always been a question whether the dream of a large nation ruled by law and the promise of justice and equality could survive. I guess we're on the verge of getting an answer.

Felon47 has to stop the mid-term elections from wrecking the slim hold he has on the legislative power to keep rolling over on its back. If he does that--and I'm betting he will try mighty hard to do so--then we're lost and Franklin's question is answered in the negative.

"M"'s avatar

Not just from an LGBTQ perspective, either

It was always hard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYF4RxkjQoo

Bill Admans's avatar

The Supreme Court decision to curtail federal courts’ ability to block presidential orders weighs heavily on my mind—and should on yours too.

While the ruling doesn’t explicitly target birthright citizenship, it undermines one of the judiciary’s most critical tools for safeguarding our constitutional rights. It clears a path for executive power to act swiftly—even unconstitutionally—without meaningful checks.

That’s why I wrote about it in depth on Substack. This moment demands more than discussion—it demands bipartisan engagement.

https://open.substack.com/pub/billadmans/p/opinion-the-supreme-courts-decision

Permanently Confused@68's avatar

Fuck the "bipartisan" part. I can't believe people are still using that word.

Jenuit Fracking Crisco's avatar

Something tells me that the nationwide injunctions on books we don't like, birth control, abortion, gay marriage, trans medical care et al will still be fine though

Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Dok. Anyone born in this country is a citizen. We must not allow the Constitution to be shredded.

ETA: Thirteen circuits, thirteen Justices. We have to win the trifecta, and expand SCOTUS to 13.

"M"'s avatar

Now you know I've been asking this literally all week now that some people clearly seem to believe they're the first ones to ever have had this idea --

"@elienyc.bsky.social laid out a *full SCOTUS expansion plan* in 2020

Why was he not listened to then by the people who could implement the necessary changes?"

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-packing/

Never mind how many times Professor Tribe has talked about how many representatives we're SUPPOSED to have, IF we were actually adhering to the precept of actual proportional representation (which we are emphatically not rn) -- we'd have something closer to like 900 representatives in the House instead of just 435

:-/

Let me sum up's avatar

That is certainly the most straightforward solution.

I'd like to chuck the constitution we have for one that offers positive rights, but there I go being all socialist-y again.

Dudley Didwrong's avatar

Yes. And a parliamentary governmental form to better maintain those rights.

SethTriggs's avatar

This is—indeed—a marker of the wide deference the unreconstructed have in the legal and political systems in the United States. And this is always why when the modern Democratic Party advances the public interest through legislation it is always in danger from rightwing crank lawsuits.

Even more critically, the Democratic Party is thoroughly identified with the civil rights of the vulnerable minorities that Americans hate. So rulings like this will be used for unreconstructed state-based regimes of terror to repress the vulnerable minorities trapped within their boundaries. And these terror regimes will have their tactics legitimized nationwide.

SkeptiKC's avatar

[snarls...]

Apparently there is a substantial shit storm blowing through the Senate at the moment. The smarmy Rethugs are trying to jam through their murder bill through poste haste. She Senate is trying to kill even MORE people that the cold blooded Rethugs in the House were. Even MORE pissed off are the Rethug senators who haven't yet READ the bill yet and demand to give it a gander.

This shit just infuriates me. Whaddya MEAN you haven't even READ the damned thing! This is a bill that is going to KILL people and these fuckwits can't even be bothered to READ the fucking thing!

Zap's avatar

Republicans that can read? That shit’s woke!

Littorally Speaking's avatar

Why would they read it?

It doesn’t matter what it says or who it hurts or even kills; it’s what Shitler ordered, so either they go along, or go back to private life.

Brianna Amore's avatar

I mean they could easily run it through an AI and ask for a summary if they're too lazy to read the goddamned thing.

Ambiance Chaser's avatar

In reflection Bezos could not have timed a tacky cringe worthy wedding shit show better . ..

SkeptiKC's avatar

These gilded and glorified gauche-bangers ride the same vibe, comrade.

Ambiance Chaser's avatar

This is the sort of court that might Dred Scott . . .

Mavenmaven's avatar

The Roland Freisler Roberts Court will go down in historical infamy, if there is still history after a few more years of this evil idiot regime's violence.

Jessica's avatar

Court is in session, Judge Dredd presiding

Let me sum up's avatar

Now, the Dread Pirate Roberts would interest me.

SethTriggs's avatar

Taney Court 2.0 wilding out!

Ambiance Chaser's avatar

Slip little pieces of paper to those nice Irish monks, they have already saved civilization once before . . .

JunkYardDogg's avatar

The Fascist SCOTUS majority are making up their own alternative Constitution which does not exist to use as a basis to justify their outrageous decisions.

Amy Barrett in her religious extremist self imbedded concept of her entitlement to tyranny is arrogantly assuming that her decisions are beyond question, especially by a woman of color.

"M"'s avatar

Joyce White Vance had a few things to point out to lil Amy B that she looks like she forgot if she was "writing for the majority" with the intent to be taken seriously

"1/ If Justice Barrett thinks we need to go back to what the Founding Fathers intended, I’ve got news for her. Their biggest concern was avoiding tyranny. So they created 3 branches of gov’t & divvied up the power the people (that’s us) were allowing the gov’t to use to create order for all of us."

https://bsky.app/profile/joycewhitevance.bsky.social/post/3lsohe4tcp22e

There's a whole thread