@skado Given SCOTUS every move like this is now a checkmate and pushing back in the courts ultimately becomes an own-goal. We are fucked.

@Scott321
Maybe. We’ll see. But if the courts prove to be fully rogue like that, I expect “extra-legal” action will occur.

Yup, he is wanting to join Alabama and Mississippi, to see which state can have the most ignorant, uninformed residents, the easier for corrupt, lying pols to control and manipulate them.

@TomMcGiverin yes, that's exactly what he wants. He will get, too, by gerrymandering and other GQP tricks. I think it's time for Democrats to be as harsh and aggressive as Republicans. I'm tired of seeing them be so nice. It's not working.

@Organist1 I've been saying this for decades... This is not the 60s anymore. Asking nicely and appealing to conscience doesn't work anymore. Winning against the Repubs requires playing hardball and playing dirty sometimes, because winning really is everything now and people no longer respect someone who does not fight hard. They only respect warriors who get results, which is why Reagan was popular with the working class, even tho his policies weren't, because he was a warrior in how he did politics. Americans do not get nuance. They only get who appears to actually be fighting for them and who isn't. That is why Bernie Sanders and Trump were the most two popular pols in America in recent years. One was a total liar about fighting for the working class and the other wasn't. But what does that tell you about how people think when it comes to supporting pols? That what matters, even more than results, is who appears to be a fighter for their policies and who isn't.

@TomMcGiverin So true. Most Amercans only respect combative people. That's why they love WWF, guns, John Wayne, mud wrestling, etc. They don't respect art, music, or literature. It's an entire culture which rewards being brutish and ignorant. However, a very strong progressive government, I think, could turn things around politically. I will vote for Biden if he runs, but prefer someone else. Both he and Obama were too afraid of offending someone. As far as I'm concerned, if they offend republicans, well, good. The GOP would have a lot to fear from a strong progressive who applies the rule of law.

@Organist1 I am reading Biden's book "Promise Me, Dad" about the time his son Beau was diagnosed with cancer up to his decision not to run in the 2016 presidential election. I blame him, after reading this book, for Trump winning the presidency and starting this landslide into political hell! He would not have been my first choice in the primary, (I was a Bernie supporter). But I would not have had to hold my nose when I voted for Hillary either if he had won the nomination, which I am sure he would have. He had not only the experience and recognition as VP going for him, but he would have had the sympathy for having lost his son so recently. If Trump had gone after Biden on his family, the sane Republicans and Independents would have turned on Trump. He would have stood up to Trump better and had far less baggage going in than Hillary did. Putting a woman against a blow hard like Trump was just a bad idea. As I am finishing the book, I really am pissed that he didn't see that dynamic and go for it. Instead he inherited the scorched earth Trump left behind and a country that is in much deeper trouble than it was in 2016.

This is going to be interesting. How does Desantis get rid of universities without getting rid of college football, the true religion of the South?

They don't care and now that they have the Fascist stacked court, they are feeling pretty confident that they will win. Second Amendment untouchable, First Amendment dead in the water under Republican government.

That one is priceless, Larry!

Either those two or Cruz...

Perish the thought.

The nullifidian here has a good idea.

Trust a majority to be sane; we need only to persuade them to vote.

@racocn8 Anything like this that goes before our corrupted SCOTUS is sure to get the rubber stamp.

I'm not sure which of these I would go with:

7-Day-Adventure for Latter Day Sinners

Temple of Your Mama's Big Hiny

666th Congregation of Dawg

Eat My Sacred Shorts DeSantis You Sanctimonious Prick

@Flyingsaucesir DEF the last one!!!!

I can see it now, just like the Monty Python sketch, " We have three.... four chief weapons: Surprise.... and a fanatical devotion to De Santis and Trump!"..... I want the comfy chair, when they come for me....

This cunt gubnor Reynolds is a criminal theocrat worse than Branflakes who elevated this female traitor to secular from her nothingness LtGovernor ticket

Torquemada....ya can't talk 'im outta nada.

Know thy enemy ....good job Tom .... ALITO cited witch burner HALE 8 times EIGHT English Common Law 5 centuries of patriarchal theocracy to shroud 6 vatican gangsters naked papal control of all fertile women, ensuring rapist visitation rights in MORE states than b4 last June 24th .... a forked tongue of "precedent" against uterus protection of women from PARASITIC sperm & placentae AND FAUX precedent for deadly weapons proliferation GLOBAL PROFITS.... this is the crusade III 3rd of zionism genocide illegal wars in 160 countries since 1946 and mega THEFT of 29 trillion dollars since ReaGUN 1982.... Jimmah Carter was the last peace prez to keep all his budgets under the 988 billion mark

@SeaGreenEyez Unfortunately, our country is headed the wrong way. Glad you pointed out it was lost to a Trump Judge.

It shouldn't, however, 5 members of SCOTUS have shown they are willing to twist any rulings their way.

@Beowulfsfriend I kow you can't justify the word "twist". Merely because you don't agree does not make them "twisters". I don't agree with all their rulings, but I understand their arguments.

@Alienbeing Ignoring precedent and citing judges from the Salem witch trials to do it, well I understand the arguments. But the arguments are horseshit. And that is indeed a twisted bit of legal reasoning, IMHO of course. The Christo-fascists, however, eat it up.

@zeuser Apparently you don't know that precedent has overruled on average of once every session since we became a country. The court has overruled itself well over 300 times.

Were you opposed to the Brown v Board of Education ruling? That ruling said that the prior "separate but equal" education previouslty approved by the Court was unconstitutional.

Study up on your subject.

@Alienbeing No need to get snarky. Actually, the court overruled itself just 232 times, and many of those reversals had the effect of expanding individual rights, not reversing them. Still, in spite of my appalling ignorance of supreme court history, I can vaguely recognize the absurdity of using witch burning laws to remove the rights of women to exercise simple body autonomy. I also detect a whiff of religion influencing that thinking. You might not think of that as twisting logic to accommodate odious religious dogma, good for you. I think it's horseshit. We will agree to disagree.

@zeuser No, actually the Court overruled itself OVER 300 times, unless my Google is incorrect. However even if your number was correct it shows that reversal is not at all unusual, which was the point.

If you think there is a "wiff" of religion in anything I say, type or think you are simply delusional. Nothing could be more incorrect.

I don't know what disagreement you agree to disagree with, my only poiint was you could not justify your use of the word "twist" and you have yet to even try.

@Alienbeing [constitutioncenter.org].

The decision itself has a whiff of religion behind it, not you. I think the motive behind the logic they used to overturn Roe is based in dogma, and the legal logic stretching back to the Salem with hunts is twisted. You disagree with that, and I disagree with you. See? You take care, now.

@zeuser Oh, I agree the decision has a wiff (even more) of religion behind it.

Your disagreement is noted but it has no basis, only your conjecture. Many people think abortion is murder, not just religious people.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions[en.wikipedia.org] › wiki › List_of_overruled_Uni...
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. ... The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is ...
‎Constitutional · ‎Fourteenth Amendment · ‎Statutory · ‎Habeas

Conflicting statements regarding reversals. However as I said previously that is irrelevent. The POINT was reversal is not at all unusual. Either number (232, or >300) shows reversal is actually rather usual.

@Alienbeing I dunno. Even if overturning precedent isn't unheard of, Alito citing Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time, 8 times in his opinion seems a little twisted to me. And that is my basic point. I'm not that concerned that you don't find this reason compelling. You do you, bro.

@zeuser Of all the Justices, I think Alito is the worst, so I won't be trying to defend him.

My complaint with you was that you seemed to be inferring that overturning was rare. Clearly it is not.

@SeaGreenEyez A Florida law is not a Federal law. If the FL law was challanged, I do not believe it would stand, it is not the same as the abortion ruling, not at all.