It is a very dark, dark day in this country. A new era of vigilante justice has just begun --- legally --- as the John "This is not a political court" Roberts Supreme Court has allowed the right-wing religious Texas abortion law stand. You can read about it here: Politico; here in the New York Times; here in the Washington Post; or here in the Wall Street Journal.
They have already gutted the right to vote, have already struck down the ability to stop gerrymandering.
I'm putting on my seer's headdress and the future is not rosy at all. The next thing to fall will be Same Sex Marriage as they force the LGBTQ+ community back into illegal status.
It seems the religious conservatives have so feared a new Roaring 20s that we are being pushed toward a new Jim Crow Victorian Age. Forced to go back to the days of secret Speakeasys...
...and raids.
13 comments:
Oh, the Repugs and the Talibangelists were coming for this and people could see it. Hillary warned us. Nobody paid attention. The gays are very comfortable in their marriages right now but I would not rule out the bigots coming for that next. THEIR freedumbs are important. Other peoples'? Not so much.
XOXO
Yes, I'm very discouraged and disheartened by all these events.
I imagine that in Texas the next step will be to award a premium of $ 100,000 for any citizen who kills another citizen?
Besides, of course, impunity and free arms and munitions.
Hugs and bisous, my darlings Jean and Pat.
I saw this on CNN and not quite surprise as in Texas like in many red states, the Conservatives are more acting like «Regressive» party.
As religion and bigottery are still in main stream in many parts of USA, the politic advances for women and therefore LGGTQ rights will always be like a «cha cha» dance. One step forward, two steps backward.
While some of those are whining over how the Taliban and Islamic countries are treating their women, they seem not much better here.
For the gay marriage, here we have settle the case for decades and no more fussying about it. Gay couples can also adopt kids and lesbians can get insiminated to get pregnant too. For we don't call it officially «gay marriage» but «gay union», civil union.
Some Christian priets will perform «gay marriages» sometime but no one is seeing it as a big deal.
The USA are always a place where religion is too powerful and badly lived by too many.
In Canada, here, NO MORE religion is part of our politics.
I know this really wouldn't solve the problem. But I wish all the women who will have to have a child they don't want, or can't take care of. Would drop them off on Abbott's doorstep. Maybe if he had to look at them in the eye it would make him realize these are people's lives he is messing with.
Texas has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. Your vote does count. This is how a minority rules. Whether it's gun laws, voting/election laws, women's right to choose, etc, even though overwhelmingly people support these measures, they don't show up and vote for them. The very same people who shout my body my choice, against masks/vaccines.
Hugs and bisous.
No matter how it seems... The world is still a mess, yeah 😏🤷♂️
You know, had people kept the centrists out, not made the Supreme Court the sole selling point to voting, not had economic policies aimed at the annihilation of the American worker, from trade with China to privileging landlords do severely, Republicans would be a tiny minority.
Yeah, the Clintons and their cronies are to blame for all of this.
While not taking political sides on this decision (or rather lack of one), I fail to understand how Justice Robert’s gets the blame when he joined three members that are considered “liberal” in his opinion of the law. Must everything have to be about politics or political parties? As John F. Kennedy so eloquently put it: “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. ”
@ Anon, 9-2-21 - We don't know who agreed or disagreed to allow this case to go unheard. Therefore, we don't know how the court would have ruled. We don't have anything from them on this: No reasoning, no for or dissent opinions. BUT, Roberts is the Chief Justice and he's the one who made the "this is not a political institution." That's all my sentence meant. If it's not a political decision to allow the Texas law to stand without hearing the case, then tell us what drove them to let it stand. That would go a long way to repudiating the political rants about this particular issue.
@ Anon, 9-2-21 - OK. Now that I've seen the dissent from Sotomayor, you're correct. Roberts voted with her, Kagan, and Breyer to hear the case. I'd love to hear from one of the others to know what drove them to allow such a draconian law to stand.
I don't think they want to bring back Prohibition. The 20s were a high time for hookers, and mutual jerkoff was almost universal among males during puberty prior to World War II. And of course everyone knows all Prohibition did was provide new niches for the mob.
Mostly they want an imaginary past. Whenever they were children and not politically aware. Many of them are still that way.
"Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this."
-Ecclesiastes 7:10
I must disagree with Solomon. One who engages in such simplistic thinking is clearly more foolish than the people of the past, having the luxury of knowing the past wasn't perfect and opting to ignore that.
Just for the record, conservatives absolutely love 1920s economics and have spent nearly a century trying to make us forget the inevitable result.
Post a Comment