A horrible, no good, very bad Court

18 thoughts on “A horrible, no good, very bad Court”

    1. Yes, our life’s work as women for women is being swept away. Mostly by men and religious individuals who assume they’ve a right to impose their religion on the rest of us. I doubt I’ll live long enough to see our 50 years of progress restored.

  1. Indeed, the current court seems to believe the Constitution should be a list of “don’ts,” rather than a list of guaranteed rights. It’s a very negative approach but a very religious one (think Moses and his Ten Commandments). It reflects what I think is the most dangerous trend of recent court decisions – the erosion of the separation of church and state.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. It’s that imposition of religion on everyone that upsets and worries me the most. The abandonment of science and fact in favor of religious tenets based only on personal beliefs and/or documents written thousands of years ago is abhorrent, especially when it violates the doctrine of separation of church and state.

      “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
      Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.”
      — H.L. Mencken

    1. I’m quite content to let religious people think and act as they wish (as long as they obey the law) … but I draw the line at their imposing their religious beliefs on anyone else or changing the law in order to do so.

    1. One can be a good Republican without ramming your religion down the throats of others. I don’t know where we go now, without a properly unbiased Supreme Court.

  2. I’m trying to imagine an up side of what appears to have nothing but down sides.

    First of all, the main body of the U.S. Constitution contains a small list of things the government is empowered to do, as well as the method required to do them.  No where in that main body is there any attempt to empower the government with the health or decisions about health for citizens of either sex.

    Then there’s the 10th amendment. It clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    The upshot of this is that we need to accept responsibility for the dismal state of current affairs and do everything we can to stop it’s continuation.  Up until recently, congress and presidents have delegated authority to regulate so that they would not have to go on record either championing or opposing proposed regulations and penalties for non-compliance. Now the burden is ours to elect people who won’t create or support illegal, unconstitutional bills and powers NOT delegated to the governmental jurisdiction in which they reside.

    Article One, Section One: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Neither the IRS. the EPA nor any other cabinet position or government agency has the power to legislate.  

    I, for one, am going to see if I can get put back on the roll of potential jurors. As one in twelve, I would have more power than any one congressperson or even the president when it comes to overturning bad laws.  If you are’t already familiar with it, everybody needs to research FIJA.

    1. Sorry you got held up for moderation. It happens automatically if you include links.

      Lord knows governance at the state level has its own built-in shortcomings. I’m thankful that here in Colorado, with the anticipated overturn of Roe v. Wade, the legislature passed a law protecting the right to abortion. So the SCOTUS ruling has no effect here. In addition, plans were immediately implemented to accommodate the expected flood of women from those states where they were disenfranchised.

      But the problem is, I think, that SCOTUS can declare any state laws unconstitutional and throw them out (after someone files suit and gets their case to the Supreme Court.) I think Colo. law is safe because repeated attempts here to knock down pro-choice protections have failed and would therefore not get as far as the Supreme Court. However, if there’s any way to get around all that and let SCOTUS control us, I’m sure someone will figure it out.

      I’d not thought of jury duty as a way to fight back, but it makes sense. It’s a step more than simply voting, although it would only come into play if an abortion-related case made it to a jury. (Yes, I can see that happening in Texas where anybody can sue someone for having or assisting an abortion. Readers may not recall you live in Texas.) I’m not sure such a case would arise here, but I’m not underestimating the determination, ingenuity, and deviousness of the anti-abortion crowd.

      I feel like we’ve entered the new Dark Ages. (And Google just told me the Dark Ages lasted 500 years!)

  3. Unfortunately, you are correct in that the SCOTUS can simply declare any state law unconstitutional if someone with standing challenges it. But… when a state (or federal) trial attempts to punish someone who gets or facilitates an abortion, they (it) must convince a jury to convict. If I am on that jury, (regardless of the circumstances) the government entity fails. Full Stop.

    1. I think I may have read that sometime in the past. It’s very well reasoned and the logic is hard to dismiss. What seems to be lacking these days is the willingness to admit that others have the same rights we do. In that, as in other things, the Bible was right in saying “Do unto others … ” Funny how so many so-called Christians seem to have forgotten that.

... and that's my two cents