Jaysus. After listening to Barrett — whom I should have included in the post — anything is possible. She thinks carrying to term is a big whatevs because there’s always adoption — which explains the 100k+ children awaiting placement now.
Would love to ask her what she has done for those born into addiction, or with serious birth defects or for that matter just born and left to shift for themselves...my guess is that her silence would be deafening!
Good guess. She paraded her unmasked children into the Covid snake pit that was the Trump White House. How low can your expectations go? Check that and then lower them some more.
I hoped to link here a Twitter thread by a disabled person whose childhood was as an adopted child in a Christian conservative family, but she has understandably restricted its readability now.
She wrote about how many Christian conservatives adopt lots of children in order to indoctrinate them, and those they deemed less desirable, as servants to the rest of the family.
Our form of government as it was intended is crumbling from within. Political influence and/or religious belief effect on the Supreme Court renders it biased and contrary to the entire point of its existence. And, we lose stability as a nation if the court decisions can be reversed easily based on who is on the court.
We face a similar situation internationally, because of Trump. We lose credibility if agreements can be discarded or signed in different ways with each Presidency. And why should we expect other nations to do what we won't do?
Back to the SC, shouldn't majority opinion (the will of the people) also be a major consideration? The majority do not want restrictions, while a minority do. I get the minority want a voice, but in this case, the minority want to control the freedom of choice over the majority. It would seem the SC should be protective not allow for restriction in this case.
What keeps stunning me (when I think about it) is that the democracy was so precarious that one guy could poke a hole in the dam (he had help, but) and look at the mess we're cleaning up now.
Like all institutions, they depend on human operation. And whole bunch of legislators have been elected who choose to act in bad faith of various descriptions but similar consequences, along with some principled legislators whose principle is to take down government.
Hopefully, assuming Roe goes down, Sotomayor’s comments turns the the vote into a Pyrrhic victory for the hand maiden crowd. One we can bounce back from.
Or maybe, just maybe, it wakes up a couple of them to the damage upholding Mississippi will do. Sometimes being optimistic these days is like looking for crumbs in the bread drawer.
I've checked and see that you follow Imani Gandy on Twitter-- do you listen to her and Jess Pieklo's podcast Boom! Lawyered? It is excellent and helpful.
They take a grim view of the expected Supreme Court decision. And argue for it well and interestingly.
What's next with these "states rights" advocates? Hmmmm, let's bring back slavery?!? Yeah, that's the ticket!!
Jaysus. After listening to Barrett — whom I should have included in the post — anything is possible. She thinks carrying to term is a big whatevs because there’s always adoption — which explains the 100k+ children awaiting placement now.
Would love to ask her what she has done for those born into addiction, or with serious birth defects or for that matter just born and left to shift for themselves...my guess is that her silence would be deafening!
I know the answer: "God will provide." I don't like her much.
Good guess. She paraded her unmasked children into the Covid snake pit that was the Trump White House. How low can your expectations go? Check that and then lower them some more.
What Paul said.
I hoped to link here a Twitter thread by a disabled person whose childhood was as an adopted child in a Christian conservative family, but she has understandably restricted its readability now.
She wrote about how many Christian conservatives adopt lots of children in order to indoctrinate them, and those they deemed less desirable, as servants to the rest of the family.
It was a new window for me, and I have no background for it, but I have requested from the library a book that came up in comments-- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13587133-the-child-catchers
If the the Supreme Court can overturn a prior decision once new members of the court join, what good is any decision they make?
That was basically Justice Sotomayor’s point. How do you pretend the Court ISN’T political?
Our form of government as it was intended is crumbling from within. Political influence and/or religious belief effect on the Supreme Court renders it biased and contrary to the entire point of its existence. And, we lose stability as a nation if the court decisions can be reversed easily based on who is on the court.
We face a similar situation internationally, because of Trump. We lose credibility if agreements can be discarded or signed in different ways with each Presidency. And why should we expect other nations to do what we won't do?
Back to the SC, shouldn't majority opinion (the will of the people) also be a major consideration? The majority do not want restrictions, while a minority do. I get the minority want a voice, but in this case, the minority want to control the freedom of choice over the majority. It would seem the SC should be protective not allow for restriction in this case.
What keeps stunning me (when I think about it) is that the democracy was so precarious that one guy could poke a hole in the dam (he had help, but) and look at the mess we're cleaning up now.
Me, too! I had thought our checks and balances were stronger than they apparently are.
Like all institutions, they depend on human operation. And whole bunch of legislators have been elected who choose to act in bad faith of various descriptions but similar consequences, along with some principled legislators whose principle is to take down government.
Hopefully, assuming Roe goes down, Sotomayor’s comments turns the the vote into a Pyrrhic victory for the hand maiden crowd. One we can bounce back from.
Or maybe, just maybe, it wakes up a couple of them to the damage upholding Mississippi will do. Sometimes being optimistic these days is like looking for crumbs in the bread drawer.
That's especially difficult since the bread storage was moved to the refrigerator a few years ago!
Bread drawer has a better ring to it, smarty pants.
It does. And yet despite the change, I continue to look for bread crumbs in the bread drawer. Perhaps it's symbolic of my unrealistic optimism. ;-)
Ha. Good one.
I've checked and see that you follow Imani Gandy on Twitter-- do you listen to her and Jess Pieklo's podcast Boom! Lawyered? It is excellent and helpful.
They take a grim view of the expected Supreme Court decision. And argue for it well and interestingly.
Thanks for the recommendation. Heading over now.