Even more strangely, she seems to think that stomping on rights is okay, even if most of the country was against that? The will of the people doesn't matter now, but it did back then?
Abortion should be legal, but tying it to an amendment to make it seem like it's protected by the constitution was always a lie that shouldn't have gotten through.
I mean - she's right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, "preference."
In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans.
Ah... so she's not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.
Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.
Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
Complicit is the word theyre searching for. Accomplices would also suffice. Co-conspirator might be giving them a bit more agency than they deserve, though.
A man who fails to register may be ineligible for opportunities important to his future. He must register to be eligible for state-funded student financial aid and employment in many states, most federal employment, job training under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.
If required to register, failure to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties.
Sure seems unfair to punish one sex for not filling out "irrelevant paperwork" and not the other. Almost like, in this instance, one sex has fewer rights than the other.
Someone clarified that pregnant women have fewer rights than men, which also means they have fewer rights than women who are not pregnant. Without getting into that discussion, I'd like to know how you think women who aren't pregnant have fewer rights than men in the US.
Whooptie shit. You're blowing that all out of proportion. Just because there's a whole bunch of penalties attached for historical reasons does not change the fact that it's irrelevant paperwork.
Until they get pregnant and then women are drafted into the breeding stock army- answer to the state if you don't take neonatal vitamins, miss doctors appointments, smoke, drink, do anything the state deems risky to it's prodigy.
The problem is that we're no longer discussing his original point. The goalposts have been moved.
If we're talking specifically about pregnant women, then he should've said that so people understand that's what he was referring to.
Trying to paint it as "all women" because sometimes some women are pregnant is disingenuous. It tells me that he's avoiding telling the truth because it hurts his argument.
Yeah because they always write up how the decision came about. The logic and reasoning based on law and precedence. I mean if they did not then it would just be invalid and void.
34 Comments
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 176 pts · 356d
Fuck you Amy. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But stay the fuck out of other people's personal decisions.
fluxion@lemmy.world · 84 pts · 356d
I feel like making the President above the law was usurping the will of the people but you fucking did it anyway
NJSpradlin@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 356d
‘People’ as established by Citizens United.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 356d
Mitt? Is that you?
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 356d
"We've got binders full of women!"
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 356d
If so, tell him to go iron his shirt
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 355d
Even more strangely, she seems to think that stomping on rights is okay, even if most of the country was against that? The will of the people doesn't matter now, but it did back then?
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -3 pts · 354d
Abortion should be legal, but tying it to an amendment to make it seem like it's protected by the constitution was always a lie that shouldn't have gotten through.
WatDabney@sopuli.xyz · 97 pts · 356d
It's a bit late in the game for that isn't it?
I mean - she's right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, "preference."
Ah... so she's not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.
Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.
Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.
Helluva timeline we're living in here....
fluxion@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 356d
And she's not even in the top 4 worst justices
tomenzgg@midwest.social · 7 pts · 354d
This; painfully, this.
HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au · 58 pts · 356d
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
psycho_driver@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 356d
Fuck these spineless twats. Their rulings are worthy of adorning toilet paper.
grte@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 356d
Calling them spineless suggests that they aren't part of the attack on democracy.
Auntievenim@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 356d
Complicit is the word theyre searching for. Accomplices would also suffice. Co-conspirator might be giving them a bit more agency than they deserve, though.
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 23 pts · 356d
Ask that bitch her opinion on women having fewer rights than men in this country, then tell her to sit down and shut up like good breeding stock
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -9 pts · 354d
How do women have fewer rights than men in the US?
It's my understanding that men have to sign up for the draft, but women don't.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 354d
Some irrelevant paperwork does not mean men have fewer rights than women.
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -4 pts · 354d
If it's just "irrelevant paperwork," then why do we have men do it and not women?
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 354d
Historical inertia. There's really no other point to it.
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -5 pts · 354d
https://www.sss.gov/register/benefits-and-penalties/
Sure seems unfair to punish one sex for not filling out "irrelevant paperwork" and not the other. Almost like, in this instance, one sex has fewer rights than the other.
Someone clarified that pregnant women have fewer rights than men, which also means they have fewer rights than women who are not pregnant. Without getting into that discussion, I'd like to know how you think women who aren't pregnant have fewer rights than men in the US.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 354d
Whooptie shit. You're blowing that all out of proportion. Just because there's a whole bunch of penalties attached for historical reasons does not change the fact that it's irrelevant paperwork.
acchariya@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 354d
Until they get pregnant and then women are drafted into the breeding stock army- answer to the state if you don't take neonatal vitamins, miss doctors appointments, smoke, drink, do anything the state deems risky to it's prodigy.
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -5 pts · 354d
So you're actually referring to pregnant women? You could at least say that so you come across as genuine instead of trying to pull one over on me.
acchariya@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 354d
I'm not the one you originally responded to but pregnancy is something that affects many more women than war affects men, at least in the US.
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su · -4 pts · 354d
The problem is that we're no longer discussing his original point. The goalposts have been moved.
If we're talking specifically about pregnant women, then he should've said that so people understand that's what he was referring to.
Trying to paint it as "all women" because sometimes some women are pregnant is disingenuous. It tells me that he's avoiding telling the truth because it hurts his argument.
asqapro@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 354d
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 354d
A vast majority of men keep voting to uphold this. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/requiring-men-but-not-women-to-register-for-the-draft-is-sex-discrimination
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 22 pts · 356d
Oh, the fucking irony.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 355d
If opinion didn't matter why the F are you "conservative"?
magnetosphere@fedia.io · 9 pts · 356d
Gotta salvage her cred as a hateful conservative hypocrite.
TomMasz@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 356d
But it is an opinion poll, just one with a small sample size. Having a law degree may be a factor but it’s still opinion-based.
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 354d
It means she's out to take more people's rights away
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 354d
Yeah because they always write up how the decision came about. The logic and reasoning based on law and precedence. I mean if they did not then it would just be invalid and void.