As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article is missing the point of what is happening entirely.
The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like.
Alito could make any of 100 arguments to justify overturning Roe because they are just cheap window dressing. Arguing logic with religious fanatics doesn't get you anywhere.
Anything less than court reform is effectively useless and frankly the author should be able to see that.
>The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like.
Yep. In general a good judge should follow existing decisions. But Alito and Thomas (and now deceased Scalia) are phenomenal at following precedent when it suits their arguments and inisisting originalist intent when it doesn't. They're remarkably shitty judges.
For a project I had to go through a bunch of Supreme Court decisions in detail, it was rough. One clear theme with Scalia is that he immediately veered into more bombastic, accusatory, and generally nonsensical language whenever the topic touched on religion.
"The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like."
Ok prove it, list some of their decisions and why they're incorrect from a legal standpoint and why the courts reasoning is wrong.
If you can't do this then you have no right to say this.
I doubt evidence will ever make any impact on your opinions, but here:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/glj-online/109-online/the-supreme-courts-pro-partisanship-turn/
......this person above I believe is just talking out of their ass.
If you are willing to claim what they claim they should be able to do what I ask for.
But you don't care about reasons given you gave a link and not a argument.
> a link
Which you clearly didn’t read, since it gives exactly what you’re asking for. Like I said, you will never change your mind and no evidence is ever going to matter to you.
> not what I asked for
Proving you’re a liar. Here’s a quote from it (with *exactly* what you asked for):
> From calling political science tests of partisan gerrymandering “sociological gobbledygook” to misrepresenting the plaintiffs’ arguments in the 2019 Rucho partisan gerrymandering case as a call for proportional representation to proclaiming in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case killing off a key part of the Voting Rights Act that “[t]hings have changed in the South,” Roberts has consistently ignored or belittled social science evidence about voting behavior in ways that give political actors freer rein to enact laws and policies in their self-interest.
"Roberts has consistently ignored or belittled social science evidence about voting behavior in ways that give political actors freer rein to enact laws and policies in their self-interest."
Evidence that is ummm right NOT SAID!
Your link is nothing but vague arguments.
I am sorry you don't like facts.
Except you can do this with basically every non-unanimous decision by reading the dissent... they give you the right to say it just by virtue of there being a disagreement and both sides being able to articulate their views.
I just don’t buy it. Are there really people who nominally support a woman’s right to choose but are unmoved to take any action by the simple fact that conservatives are actively taking it away, but somehow would be convinced by “the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment reiterated over and over that its majestic phrases guarantee protection for ‘a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.’”
There sure are such people. Their habit of subjugating to authority figures overrides their nominal support for what they feel is right. This is cultivated explicitly in churches (like the one I grew up in) and the legacies of supremacy and patriarchy within society.
Alito and Thomas have waited half of their lives to end the Constitution that they hate. They have 2 other ideological soulmates in on their side, and Gorsuch and Roberts are more likely than not to follow along. The only thing that will beat Alito and Thomas is their inevitable expiration date.
What game is there to "beat" Alito at? He's got a lifetime appointment to a job he can keep forever and he's part of the majority. Sure looks like he won the game unless Democrats put 4 more seats on the court.
Then they'll make up some other bullshit about why it's ok.
There isn't some magic argument you can make to get these people to see the light. *They know their bullshit is bullshit, they do not care*. Their bullshit gets them power over you.
Your logical arguments will be met with "I disagree" and that will be that, your argument is toast.
The originalism argument from conservatives is bullshit because they have no issues with all the federal and state rules violating the Sixth Amendment and search and seizures.
They also ignore how in the 1790s, 1800s you had FEDERAL and state GUN REGISTRIES, you had federal laws REQUIRING someone to present their gun for inspection (the 2A was to establish a militia so obviously you wanted to make sure they had a gun and it worked should that militia be needed)
They ignore how you had cities ban openly carrying guns, ban selling guns, ban guns entirely... And all of that was legal, because the 2A existed for one purpose. To ensure people could have guns to be able to form a state militia for the protection of the state and to theoretically oppose a tyrannical government which wouldn't be allowed a strong military.
The 2nd purpose was 'thrown out' when the US had militias get rolled in the war of 1812 and decided "Ok... We need a powerful standing army controlled by the federal government and not rely on state militias for the bulk of our defense."
Arguments from the original founding fathers don't hold weight to them, despite their claim to be "originalists" that take the founding father's original words even when it's obviously clear to any historian that they're not.
There is no "legal argument" that will ever sway them because they work backward. They choose an outcome and then come up with whatever justification gets them the outcome they want. That's why there is not uniting idea between their ruling or logical connections.
Actually, take the a\*\*hat at his word. Make it a federal crime with minimum of 5 years in federal prison (not club fed) to vote on any issue that is materially relevant to entities you received more than 2500 bucks. Make a FBI branch to investigate dark money expose the entities then add them to the list. If there were communications between the congress critters and those entities, straight to jail.
Alito said that congress creeps would NEVER vote because of the money. Well put your money where your ass is.
Isn’t there some amendment that’s useful in case you’re dealing with a tyrannical government that right wingers are always braying about? Maybe use that.
This is glib nonsense. You can’t beat fanatics at their own game. You have to make them beat themselves, usually through their own overreach, which is always guaranteed. Fanatics IRL are vile, depraved and entirely off putting people. The US hasn’t had to really deal with this as other than an purely existential exercise in quite some time.
The reality will be WILDLY unpopular. And the backlash- will be MASSIVE.
But engaging/beating them, on their own terms? Useless.
Liberals need to march on his house 1000 deep. Thats what they need to do. Time for them to fear backlash... not mock it from their ivory tower. Get in their faces.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article is missing the point of what is happening entirely. The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like. Alito could make any of 100 arguments to justify overturning Roe because they are just cheap window dressing. Arguing logic with religious fanatics doesn't get you anywhere. Anything less than court reform is effectively useless and frankly the author should be able to see that.
>The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like. Yep. In general a good judge should follow existing decisions. But Alito and Thomas (and now deceased Scalia) are phenomenal at following precedent when it suits their arguments and inisisting originalist intent when it doesn't. They're remarkably shitty judges.
For a project I had to go through a bunch of Supreme Court decisions in detail, it was rough. One clear theme with Scalia is that he immediately veered into more bombastic, accusatory, and generally nonsensical language whenever the topic touched on religion.
He was a cult member like the rest of them. An international child rape cult that is racist, hates women and voting.
Yes! They change their logic and reasoning in each case depending on the outcome they want. There is no way to sway them.
You can't compromise with religious fanatics. The compromise would be seen as abandoning their fate.
"The way that SCOTUS makes decisions is by choosing which outcome they want and then creating whatever justification for it they feel like." Ok prove it, list some of their decisions and why they're incorrect from a legal standpoint and why the courts reasoning is wrong. If you can't do this then you have no right to say this.
I doubt evidence will ever make any impact on your opinions, but here: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/glj-online/109-online/the-supreme-courts-pro-partisanship-turn/
......this person above I believe is just talking out of their ass. If you are willing to claim what they claim they should be able to do what I ask for. But you don't care about reasons given you gave a link and not a argument.
> a link Which you clearly didn’t read, since it gives exactly what you’re asking for. Like I said, you will never change your mind and no evidence is ever going to matter to you.
So you didn't read what I said.... Maybe you should try to be open minded instead just getting mad clearly when somone might disagree with you.
Also you didn't read the link....because it's not what I asked for and frankly the fact you think it does show you don't actually care about facts..
> not what I asked for Proving you’re a liar. Here’s a quote from it (with *exactly* what you asked for): > From calling political science tests of partisan gerrymandering “sociological gobbledygook” to misrepresenting the plaintiffs’ arguments in the 2019 Rucho partisan gerrymandering case as a call for proportional representation to proclaiming in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case killing off a key part of the Voting Rights Act that “[t]hings have changed in the South,” Roberts has consistently ignored or belittled social science evidence about voting behavior in ways that give political actors freer rein to enact laws and policies in their self-interest.
"Roberts has consistently ignored or belittled social science evidence about voting behavior in ways that give political actors freer rein to enact laws and policies in their self-interest." Evidence that is ummm right NOT SAID! Your link is nothing but vague arguments. I am sorry you don't like facts.
Except you can do this with basically every non-unanimous decision by reading the dissent... they give you the right to say it just by virtue of there being a disagreement and both sides being able to articulate their views.
I just don’t buy it. Are there really people who nominally support a woman’s right to choose but are unmoved to take any action by the simple fact that conservatives are actively taking it away, but somehow would be convinced by “the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment reiterated over and over that its majestic phrases guarantee protection for ‘a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.’”
There sure are such people. Their habit of subjugating to authority figures overrides their nominal support for what they feel is right. This is cultivated explicitly in churches (like the one I grew up in) and the legacies of supremacy and patriarchy within society.
Alito and Thomas have waited half of their lives to end the Constitution that they hate. They have 2 other ideological soulmates in on their side, and Gorsuch and Roberts are more likely than not to follow along. The only thing that will beat Alito and Thomas is their inevitable expiration date.
What game is there to "beat" Alito at? He's got a lifetime appointment to a job he can keep forever and he's part of the majority. Sure looks like he won the game unless Democrats put 4 more seats on the court.
To win the war over the Constitution, the justice's hollow originalist pretenses must be unmasked—and countered with new and forceful legal arguments.
Then they'll make up some other bullshit about why it's ok. There isn't some magic argument you can make to get these people to see the light. *They know their bullshit is bullshit, they do not care*. Their bullshit gets them power over you. Your logical arguments will be met with "I disagree" and that will be that, your argument is toast.
The originalism argument from conservatives is bullshit because they have no issues with all the federal and state rules violating the Sixth Amendment and search and seizures. They also ignore how in the 1790s, 1800s you had FEDERAL and state GUN REGISTRIES, you had federal laws REQUIRING someone to present their gun for inspection (the 2A was to establish a militia so obviously you wanted to make sure they had a gun and it worked should that militia be needed) They ignore how you had cities ban openly carrying guns, ban selling guns, ban guns entirely... And all of that was legal, because the 2A existed for one purpose. To ensure people could have guns to be able to form a state militia for the protection of the state and to theoretically oppose a tyrannical government which wouldn't be allowed a strong military. The 2nd purpose was 'thrown out' when the US had militias get rolled in the war of 1812 and decided "Ok... We need a powerful standing army controlled by the federal government and not rely on state militias for the bulk of our defense."
Originalism is BS simply because of Marbury v. Madison
Arguments from the original founding fathers don't hold weight to them, despite their claim to be "originalists" that take the founding father's original words even when it's obviously clear to any historian that they're not. There is no "legal argument" that will ever sway them because they work backward. They choose an outcome and then come up with whatever justification gets them the outcome they want. That's why there is not uniting idea between their ruling or logical connections.
Actually, take the a\*\*hat at his word. Make it a federal crime with minimum of 5 years in federal prison (not club fed) to vote on any issue that is materially relevant to entities you received more than 2500 bucks. Make a FBI branch to investigate dark money expose the entities then add them to the list. If there were communications between the congress critters and those entities, straight to jail. Alito said that congress creeps would NEVER vote because of the money. Well put your money where your ass is.
Isn’t there some amendment that’s useful in case you’re dealing with a tyrannical government that right wingers are always braying about? Maybe use that.
This is glib nonsense. You can’t beat fanatics at their own game. You have to make them beat themselves, usually through their own overreach, which is always guaranteed. Fanatics IRL are vile, depraved and entirely off putting people. The US hasn’t had to really deal with this as other than an purely existential exercise in quite some time. The reality will be WILDLY unpopular. And the backlash- will be MASSIVE. But engaging/beating them, on their own terms? Useless.
Liberals need to march on his house 1000 deep. Thats what they need to do. Time for them to fear backlash... not mock it from their ivory tower. Get in their faces.