So restrain Mike Johnson?
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
122 points (94.2% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3797 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In a modest way though.
deleted by creator
Kinky! I like it. Is there a leather daddy in the house?
Thomas & Johnson aren't Conservatives. They are #christofascists. Full stop.
Christofascists are conservatives. Don't let conservatives off the hook.
Conservatives did this. They are continuing to do this. They will never stop doing this unless they are physically stopped.
...if you ever wanted to see the moral bankruptcy of evangelicals laid completely bare to see.
The scariest part to me is that the moral bankruptcy you describe makes it easy to imagine one of them convincing themselves that God wants them to off Biden and Harris to give us President Johnson. Not that they could succeed, but I can't help but wonder if someone might try.
deleted by creator
His opinion of what is evil that is. Like universal healthcare and family leave. Evil stuff.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
From endorsing hard labor prison sentences for abortion providers to supporting the criminalization of gay sex, his staunchly conservative rhetoric is rooted in an era of “biblical morality,” that he says was washed away with the counterculture in the 1960s.
“Speaker Johnson embraces a view that is not only outside of the mainstream but is so radical in terms of his endorsement of the Thomas position, that even the extremely conservative Supreme Court majority isn’t willing to go there,” said Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a CNN legal analyst.
Johnson’s rhetoric has tapped into a “persecution complex” for evangelicals as American culture leans increasingly left on social issues, said Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor.
Homosexuality was a frequent topic for Johnson, which he has called “inherently unnatural” and a “dangerous lifestyle.” In addition to suggesting he hopes the Supreme Court will reverse its decision allowing same-sex marriage, he also wrote in support of Texas’ anti-sodomy laws, which said gay men caught having sex could be fined.
On numerous occasions, Johnson also voiced approval for a Louisiana state trigger law – passed in 2006 – which banned abortion without exceptions for rape and incest the day Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Following Trump’s 2020 reelection defeat, Johnson played a pivotal role in efforts to overturn the election – urging his colleagues to sign onto the Texas Attorney General’s longshot lawsuit aiming to throw out the results in key swing states.
The original article contains 1,835 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
“Settled law” is the political version of “I regret my crimes”. The right say it all they need so they can get back to proving they don’t believe it
For those that don’t follow or read about these things:
Settled law, like Roe? Let’s see what some of these justices said about Roe during their confirmation hearings, in order (notice the differences in each new justice confirmation)
~Gorsuck~ Gorsuch:
Gorsuch said that the Roe decision was “precedent,” but declined to call it “super precedent,” a loosely defined term indicating a deeply rooted, repeatedly upheld precedent. He also declined to give his opinion on whether he thought the court’s ruling was correct.
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
(he did say a good judge, after all)
Grassley: What about Griswold, which was decided a few years before Roe, the case where the Court found constitutional right to privacy? Can you tell me your views on Griswold?
Gorsuch: Senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old. Griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. And it is 50 years old. The reliance interests are obvious. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed. All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.
Kavanaugh:
During questioning, Kavanaugh avoided answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling. Instead, Kavanaugh repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was “settled as precedent.”
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.
ACB:
Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, “I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
So naturally, it was untouched right?
The court voted 5-4, largely along party lines, to overturn Roe and 6-3, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which involved Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
It’s almost like they’re all fucking liars who only act in bad faith