#anti scotus

[madeunmexico]

#anti scotus #affirmative action #black women #its only the beginning

[girlssagainstgod]

ok repeat after me you aren’t “pro-life” you’re just anti-choice and anti-women

#it makes me so infuriatingly angry #literally laughable #pro life for who? the child you’re forcing to endure abuse/neglect/hardships bc their parents weren’t ready? #if you’re pro life you can fuck off #pro choice #roe v wade #womens rights #womensupportingwomen #pro abortion #anti scotus #fuck scotus #human rights #united states #scotus #abortion #pro birth control #cottagecore #cozycore #witch #florence and the machine #reproductive justice #reproductive rights #healthcare #activism #justice #freedom

[rebelarkey]

Republicans: All life is precious

Me: Will you get a vaccine to protect others then?

Republicans: No you can’t tell me what to do with my body

Me: You’re telling people with uteri what to do with their body

Republicans: But it’s to save the life of another human

Me: Which is exactly what the vaccines does— it save lives

Republicans: You can’t force me to take a vaccine to save the life of others. There might be complications!

Me: well, then why are you forcing people to have children they don’t want? There are complications with pregnancy and side effects and the possibility of death.

Republicans: fine if you wanna be dead I’m just gonna shoot you with my gun then because my right to bear arms trumps your right to bodily autonomy 

Me: okay then. I have more rights as a dead person than I do as a living one.

Republicans: *shoots me*

Republicans: All lives are precious

#pro choice #anti republicans #pro vaccines #anti trump #roe versus wade #roe v wade #coronavirus 19 #covid 19 #anti scotus #anti guns #abortion #right to an abortion #I hate republicans I hate living in a red state get me out pls

[pinktwingirl]

One of the most common reasons I hear for people being against abortion is because “life is sacred.”

Really? Since when? When has life ever been sacred in this country?

If life is sacred, how come we don’t have universal healthcare?

If life is sacred, how come we don’t pass comprehensive gun laws so first graders don’t get gunned down in their classrooms?

If life is sacred, why don’t we offer paid maternal leave so mothers can actually take care of the babies that you are now forcing them to have?

If life is sacred, how come we don’t bat an eye when the police murder black kids?

If life is sacred, why do we have the highest maternal death rate in the developed world, which is only going to increase now that women are being forced to give birth?

If life is sacred, why is the death penalty even still a thing?

If life is sacred, why are we still encouraging violence against the LGBTQ+ community?

Life has literally never been sacred in this country. Maybe anti-choicers like to pretend that it is because it makes them feel righteous when in reality, they’re just misogynistic pieces of shit, but it’s not. And as long as psychotic, reactionary morons continue to steal power undemocratically and make decisions that the majority of us do not want, it never will be.

#roe v wade #roe v wade saves lives #abortion is healthcare #abortion rights #pro choice #womens rights #fuck the supreme court #fuck scotus #fuck anti choicers #pro abortion #blm #black lives matter #lgbtq #us politics

[deathloveshischicagopizza]

I don't give a single fuck about this country no more. I already was angry at about 65% of it but this just put me at 100. Every single SCJ and lawmaker out there who made this possible can go to Hell or Tartarus or get sucked into the Void, and I would not spit in their direction if they were on fire. Fuck anyone who wants to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body--this is infringing on my Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and if anyone out there says they're "upholding American values" by condoning this shit, they are either dumb as a box of nails or lying like a goddamned rug. There are no American values, it's all oxymoronic satire and hypocrites acting righteous. Yall can kick rocks if you support any of this bullshit.

#roe v wade #fuck you america #anti scotus #this is bullshit #if you're happy you can go ahead and fall off a cliff

[mysharona1987]

NYT seriously suggesting that you commit suicide to get out of student loan debt.

Someone thought this was a good idea to publish.

#Suicide tw #scotus #news #politics #capitalism #anti capitalism #democrats #republicans #collrge #student loans #federal

[tomorrowusa]

Donald Trump wants voters to forget that he killed Roe v. Wade. Don't let people forget what he did.

Trump’s fundamental disinterest in the truth value of his words is the only context that matters for his comments on abortion Monday morning. In a direct-to-camera statement on Truth Social, the former president told his audience that he does not support a national ban on abortion. “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,” Trump said. “The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state.” [ ... ] Compared with the mounting push from anti-abortion activists to ban the procedure nationwide, however, Trump’s stance is designed to look almost moderate. And if you were born yesterday, you could even say that Trump was beginning his pivot to the center, to blur the difference on abortion between himself and other Republicans. [ ... ] The truth of the matter is that given a second term in office, Trump and his allies will do everything in their power to ban abortion nationwide, with or without a Republican majority in Congress. Recall that in his 2016 campaign, Trump said that there had to be “some form” of punishment for women who had abortions. Later, as president, he backed a House bill that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks. Anti-abortion strategists have not been shy about their plan to use the 1873 Comstock Act, an anti-obscenity law, as legal authority for executive actions to limit abortions throughout the country, in blue states as well as red ones. [ ... ] We already know what he wants, what he’ll do and what he’ll sign. Trump landed a major blow against legal abortion during his first term. If given a second, he will land another.

In his own words, Trump brags about killing Roe v. Wade to an adoring Fox News audience this year.

#donald trump #trump killed roe v. wade #maga #republicans #abortion #us supreme court #trump scotus appointments #reproductive freedom #a woman's right to choose #comstock act #dobbs v. jackson women's health organization #anti-abortion fanatics #jamelle bouie #election 2024 #vote blue no matter who #Youtube

[odinsblog]

The Black Lives Matter movement hits a milestone on Thursday, marking 10 years since its 2013 founding in response to the acquittal of the man who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Gunned down in a Florida gated community where his father lived in 2012, Martin was one of the earliest symbols of a movement that now wields influence in politics, law enforcement and broader conversations about racial progress in and outside the U.S.

BLM activists and organizations plan to mark a decade of the movement with in-person and virtual events. Calls to action include a renewed push to defund police departments and reinvest in Black communities that have suffered disproportionately from police brutality, unequal treatment in criminal justice systems and mass incarceration.

In the wake of Supreme Court decisions that stymied relief from student loan debt held disproportionately by Black borrowers and banned affirmative action in higher education, the need for BLM’s existence couldn’t be more clear, said prominent movement activist Melina Abdullah.

“What this movement moment means is that we have to absolutely redouble our efforts and redouble our commitment to making Black lives matter,” said Abdullah, who is a director of BLM Grassroots Inc, a collective of organizers across the country.

“Ten years in, we’re getting a glimpse at what would happen if there were no Black Lives Matter,” she said. “We’re not just going to fight when it’s popular, but we’re going to fight because we need to fight.”

(continue reading)

#politics #blacklivesmatter #trayvon martin #black history #scotus #affirmative action #anti blackness #racism #police #defund the police

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

On Thursday, Justice Neil Gorsuch released a 26-page opinion venting outrage about a legal dispute that does not exist, involving websites that do not exist. Yet this case, built on imaginary grounds, will have very real consequences for LGBTQ consumers, and for anti-discrimination laws more broadly. All of the Court’s Republican appointees joined Gorsuch’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis.

That said, the fake dispute that Gorsuch imagines in his 303 Creative opinion involves a reasonably narrow legal question.

In the past, Christian right advocates have sought sweeping exemptions from state and federal civil rights laws, rooted in their expansive notion of “religious liberty.” Often, these lawsuits claimed that the Constitution’s safeguards for people of faith allow anyone who objects to LGBTQ people on religious grounds to defy any law prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

303 Creative involves a much narrower dispute. The case centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who wishes to expand her business into designing wedding websites — something she has never done before. She says she’s reluctant to do so, however, because she fears that if she designs such a website for an opposite-sex couple, Colorado’s anti-discrimination law will compel her to also design wedding websites for same-sex couples. And Smith objects to same-sex marriages.

As Gorsuch summarizes her claim, Smith “worries that, if she [starts designing wedding websites,] Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees.”

This is not a religious liberty claim, it is a free speech claim, rooted in well-established law, which says that the First Amendment forbids the government from compelling people to say something that they would rather not say. In ruling in Smith’s favor, the Court does not say that any religious conservative can defy any anti-discrimination law. It simply holds that someone like Smith, who publishes words for a living, may refuse to say something they don’t want to say.

The full implications of Gorsuch’s opinion are not entirely clear. In the past, religious conservatives have argued that artists and artisans of all kinds — including bakers, photographers, and floral arrangement designers — should also be allowed to discriminate under the First Amendment, because all artistic work necessarily entails some kind of expression. Gorsuch punts on this question, writing that “hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment,” are not present in the 303 Creative case.

And it is worth emphasizing that the particular kind of work that Smith does, writing words on a publicly available website, fits more snugly within the First Amendment than a similar claim brought by a wedding cake designer or a florist.

Before this case was argued, I wrote that if Lorie Smith had been approached by a same-sex couple and refused to design a wedding website for them, and if she had then been sued for refusing to do so, then she would have a very strong First Amendment defense against such a suit. As the Supreme Court said in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” And that includes the right of a web designer to refuse to write words on a website that they do not wish to write.

But none of these events have actually happened. And, for that reason, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the case.

THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT THIS FAR

The frustrating thing about this case is that it involves an entirely fabricated legal dispute. Again, Lorie Smith has never actually made a wedding website for a paying customer. Nor has Colorado ever attempted to enforce its civil rights law against Ms. Smith. Indeed, in its brief to the Supreme Court, Colorado expressed doubt that its anti-discrimination law would even apply to Smith.

Yet Gorsuch’s majority opinion repeatedly paints Smith as a hapless victim, oppressed by wicked state officials who insist that she must proclaim a dogma that she denies. As he writes in the very first paragraph of his opinion, “Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe.”

This claim is simply untrue. Colorado has not brought any enforcement action against Smith, or taken any other step to compel her to say anything at all — or to design any website that she does not want to design. Nor has anyone ever sued Smith for allegedly violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Indeed, in one particularly amusing turn, Smith alleged during an early stage of this litigation that she was approached by a man about doing some design work for his wedding to another man. Yet, after the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant contacted this man, she learned that he never reached out to Smith — and that he was married to a woman.

These facts matter because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to decide hypothetical cases. As a unanimous Supreme Court held in Texas v. United States (1998), “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” So the Court should have told Smith to go away and come back when she had a real dispute with the state of Colorado.

303 Creative, moreover, is the second time Gorsuch has taken such liberties with the truth in order to rule in favor of a religious conservative. Almost exactly one year ago, Gorsuch handed down the Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), a case about a public school football coach who, after games, would walk to the center of the 50-yard line and ostentatiously kneel down and pray before students and spectators — often while surrounded by players, community members, and even members of the press.

Indeed, in her dissent in Bremerton, Justice Sonia Sotomayor included a photo of Coach Kennedy holding such a prayer session, as a throng of uniformed football players and other individuals kneel with him, and as people holding video cameras look on.

And yet, Gorsuch’s opinion in Bremerton claimed that Kennedy merely wanted to offer a “short, private, personal prayer,” and then Gorsuch ruled in favor of Kennedy based on this fabricated version of Kennedy’s actual conduct.

Needless to say, this is aberrant behavior by a Supreme Court Justice — and really by six Supreme Court justices, since all of the Court’s Republican appointees joined Gorsuch’s decisions in 303 Creative and Kennedy.

#us politics #news #vox #2023 #us supreme court #SCOTUS #303 Creative v. Elenis #republicans #conservatives #justice neil gorsuch #religious liberty #republican homophobia #anti lgbtq discrimination #lgbtqia+ rights #lgbtqia+ #Lorie Smith #Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights #Texas v. United States #Kennedy v. Bremerton School District #justice sonia sotomayor

[profeminist]

Dr. Andrea Orzoff, quoting Jamelle Bouie : "The Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system...it cannot shield itself from the power of the other branches.... The Constitution provides a number of paths by which Congress can restrain and discipline a rogue court.

It can impeach and remove justices. It can increase or decrease the size of the court itself (at its inception, the Supreme Court had only six members). It can strip the court of its jurisdiction over certain issues or it can weaken its power of judicial review by requiring a supermajority of justices to sign off on any decision that overturns a law. Congress can also rebuke the court with legislation that simply cancels the decision in question. In the face of a reckless, reactionary and power-hungry court, Congress has options.

It will take time to build the kind of power and consensus needed to make significant changes to the court. But even the work of amassing that power and putting that consensus together can stand as a credible threat to a Supreme Court that has acted, under conservative control, as if it stands above the constitutional system, unaccountable to anyone other than itself."

Thread: https://twitter.com/DrO_aorzoff/status/1540836543048192001

#scotus #supreme court #anti democratic establishment #politics #roe vs. wade #feminism #feminist #stop forced childbirth #pro choice #pro-choice

[badlucksav]

If you support the Roe v Wade overturn in any way shape or form, kindly unfollow me and then go fuck yourself.

#roe v wade #hands off my uterus #fuck scotus #abortions are healthcare #corpses currently have more rights than uterus owners #what the fuck America #you’re either pro choice or anti humanity #sorry not sorry

[beauty-funny-trippy]

#supreme court #meme #memes #rights #freedoms #conservatives #politics #government #America #Americans #abortion rights #voting rights #republicans #democrats #far right #anti-trump #beauty-funny-trippy #women's rights #woman #scotus #man #wheel #wheelchair

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

This may be the biggest seizure of power by the federal judiciary in US history. Brace yourself. The Supreme Court conservatives, exuding the heady self-confidence of a team that knows it cannot lose, haven’t been coy about the jurisprudence they want to reshape or tear down. Religious liberty, abortion, guns — the Court has recently taken up and dispensed with a whole swath of cases at astonishing speeds, often dramatically changing the bench’s long-held posture in relative silence through the shadow docket. But perhaps on no topic has the Court telegraphed its intent more clearly than the administrative state, the power of federal agencies to regulate and make rules. The dry name belies a system absolutely critical to every corner of American life.

“If I want to dump chemical waste in a swamp, I’d prefer that the federal government not have power to regulate that,” Julian Davis Mortenson, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told TPM. “If I want to pay people working in my factory a miserably tiny wage, or employ 12 year-olds, I’d rather the federal government not have the power to make a rule against that.” The Court is now stocked with justices hungry to shift the power back in the direction of those nonregulatory interests. In doing so, they’ll really be shifting power to themselves. “If the Supreme Court truly honored the rule of law and precedent, then they would acknowledge the power of the agencies that was granted to them by Congress in order to save our environment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM of a recent illustrative case involving the Environmental Protection Agency. “But this is an extremist Supreme Court, so I’m very worried about the outcome.” Because Congress is already paralyzed on critical issues, the prospect of a future in which the administrative state is rendered toothless is also a future in which unelected, conservative Justices become the arbiters of what the government can and can’t do. It’s a right-wing fantasy, cherished and developed for decades, come to life.

#TPM #Talking Points Memo #SCOTUS #corrupt SCOTUS #anti-democratic #power #the administrative state #federal agencies #regulation #the rule of law and precedent #rule of law

[theroadtofairyland]

Vote BLUE!!! Donald Trump isn't president but it's still his court that will take all of the freedoms you enjoy away from you.

#vote democrat #vote blue #vote biden #homophobia #anti lgbtq+ #fucking scotus

[porterdavis]

You're assuming he can read...

#neil gorsuch #scotus #anti-vaxxers

[tomorrowusa]

^^^ Be careful how you word things in Alabama!

Be even more careful how you vote. The only way to protect reproductive freedom is to Vote Democratic.

Spending all your rent money at a casino is a better bet than voting for a third party. At least at the casino you have a remote chance of success.

#reproductive freedom #abortion #alabama #alabama supreme court #in vitro fertilization #ivf #embryos are children #republicans #the gop #donald trump #anti-abortion extremists #roe v. wade #freedom of choice #dobbs v. jackson women's health organization #a woman's right to choose #republicans hate freedom #the sanctity of reproductive freedom #republicans are obsessed with controlling your reproductive system #trump and bush scotus justices killed roe v. wade #vote blue no matter who #election 2024 #pat bagley