SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amy Coney Barrett: Who is Trump's Supreme Court pick?:
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the US Supreme Court comes as little surprise.
[...] Donald Trump - who as sitting president gets to select nominees - reportedly once said he was "saving her" for this moment: when elderly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and a vacancy on the nine-member court arose.
It took the president just over a week to fast-track the 48-year-old conservative intellectual into the wings. This is his chance to tip the court make-up even further to the right ahead of the presidential election, when he could lose power.
Barrett's record on gun rights and immigration cases imply she would be as reliable a vote on the right of the court, as Ginsburg was on the left, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.
"Ginsburg maintained one of the most consistent liberal voting records in the history of the court. Barrett has the same consistency and commitment," he adds. "She is not a work-in-progress like some nominees. She is the ultimate 'deliverable' for conservative votes."
And her vote, alongside a conservative majority, could make the difference for decades ahead, especially on divisive issues such as abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act (the Obama-era health insurance provider).
Barrett's legal opinions and remarks on abortion and gay marriage have made her popular with the religious right, but earned vehement opposition from liberals.
But as a devout Catholic, she has repeatedly insisted her faith does not compromise her work.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is facing considerable controversy about his plans to move the nomination forward quickly:
"President Trump could not have made a better decision," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said in a statement. "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States."
He added: "First, Judge Barrett built a reputation as a brilliant scholar at the forefront of the legal academy. Then she answered the call to public service. For three years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has demonstrated exactly the independence, impartiality, and fidelity to our laws and Constitution that Americans need and deserve on their highest Court... As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead, following the work of the Judiciary Committee supervised by Chairman Graham."
This is in sharp contrast to McConnell's actions following US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing away on February 13, 2016. McConnell waited less than 2 hours to make the first of 5 statements to urging delay in nominating a new Supreme Court justice:
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president
That statement was made with 342 days (over 11 months) remaining in Obama's term as President. There are 124 days (just over 4 months) remaining before the end of Trump's term.
President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) followed McConnell's lead and never allowed the confirmation process to begin. Thus, no nomination was ever brought to the Senate floor and thereby leaving the vacancy open.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @05:56PM (12 children)
Wait a moment.
It's been partisan since basically forever.
And senates have pretty reliably given opposed presidents the finger, and allied presidents an open hand.
But this - THIS time it's an OUTRAGE! We must RAIL against the PARTISAN VAMPIRE SQUID EVIL in our government!
News flash for everyone in the rest of the world: this is american politics as usual, and the precedent of centuries suggests that she will be confirmed. You can go back to sleep now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:07PM (2 children)
Oh shit! I was aware of the lizard people, but not the squid. Is this a new threat, or is it just more of the same threat? Do we need to declare a new emergency now?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @03:43AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:05AM
Always suspected this of the khallow. Thrall of the lizard people, and the Vienna Circle. Checks out. Now we know why he was always arguing in bad faith. He had no hope of winning, he was depending on the Mind Control Powers of his masters. Mormons, killing their own kids, because, salvation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:08PM (7 children)
They used to require 60 votes out of 100. That forced some kind of balancing to be done. The new way doesn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:30PM (2 children)
Thank Harry Reid: gleichschaltung! [thefederalist.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:48PM
I rate your post half true.
It is true that Harry Reid and Democrats did abolish the filibuster for confirming most judicial nominees. This took place in 2013. However, the filibuster was preserved for Supreme Court nominees.
In 2017, Republicans, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch with a narrow Republican majority in the Senate.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271 [nbcnews.com]
It is true that Harry Reid and the Democrats did break with tradition and longstanding rules of the Senate to abolish the filibuster for most judicial nominees. This precedent may have made Republicans more willing to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. However, the act of eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was done by Republicans, not Democrats. There are elements of truth in your post but it is incorrect about a key detail. Therefore, I rate your post half true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:22PM
Aw that's cute. Now get the fuck out of the way next time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:43PM (3 children)
Progressives keep shooting themselves in the foot this way.
OK, maybe painting the likes of Schumer as progressive is a bit rich, but the democrats got rid of the filibuster for lower-level appointments, and then appeared all shocked and horrified when the republicans ditched it for the supremes. Sauce for goose turns out to be pretty much like sauce for gander.
Now we have a wave of voices suggesting that the senate should also not need a supermajority for legislation. Why? Because that supermajority makes it super hard to push through progressive legislation.
Of course, when the pendulum swings and the republicans will not need a supermajority to slam the door on various things, it will be the act of demonic alien forces controlling the lizard people blahblahblah. It's like the idiots calling for government health as if there will never be a government in charge with which they disagree. You don't want someone like Pence in charge of abortion decisions? Then for the love of little kittens, don't give government that club because as sure as fate it will be used against you.
My sympathy for the hand-wringing crowd is far beyond gone. Now they're just a fit target for mockery.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:25PM (2 children)
I think the craven displays of Trump loyalty have nicely motivated Democrats to get some ugly wins rather than always pathetically begging for bipartisan compromise (where they give away the house).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:47PM (1 child)
Meh. I think what really happened was that the disturbing strength of the Bernie Bros and the likes of Warren is motivating the bigwigs and centrists to get more active. Does Nancy Pelosi really give an icosahedral shit what a bunch of MAGA God-botherers in Alabama think? Spoiler alert: no. Not now, not ever. She cares what her constituency thinks, and the grandees of the democratic party that make up their DNC superdelegates and other kingmakers.
Now sure, a bunch of activists in Portland are all about scoring points against the red hat army, because that's an identifiable enemy, but aside from the fallout of street fighting, Pelosi's interest in that is basically nil. You could say the same for Chuck Schumer, or Patty Murray. They care about what their own voters seem to want. Nancy didn't tear up the state of the union speech because she cared about McConnell's folks in Kentucky. She did it for the people in San Francisco who need to know that she's totally all-in for their hatred of the Great Orange Evil. And if a few ugly wins means she's more likely to be re-elected? Great stuff.
(And let's not get all misty-eyed about bipartisan compromise. Complaining about it is a bipartisan pastime.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:50PM
What the hell are you talking about?
> misty-eyed about bipartisan compromise
They better not. Ugly wins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:24PM
You can thank Lindsay Graham for that as well as the Republican habit of crying 'hypocrite!!!' whenever their rational positions break down.
Except that our checks and balances are down and we like going to war for hard-to-defend reasons.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:08PM (16 children)
Suuuure. Retards that seriously believe this shit about magic sky fairies have absolutely no interest in reality, and should never be placed in charge of anything.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:16PM (7 children)
You are not permitted to consider the woman's religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause [wikipedia.org]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:35PM (6 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:45PM (5 children)
Yes, that IS what it says. You are not permitted to design any test in regards to religion. Non-Christians will readily tell us that we may not exclude a Muslim or a Jew or an Atheist from office. By the same reasoning, you may not exclude a Catholic. You have to be consistent - no test is no test.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:19PM (3 children)
Catholics have been trying to take over America since at least the reign of Henry the VIII. They have conspired, plotted, bankrolled Scottish pretenders to the throne, and tried to blow up Parliament. Now they will achieve a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. Expect abortion and birth control to become illegal, capital punishment more prevalent but more frowned upon, Milo Yankmychainalot to be restored, and Mormons to be Inquisitioned. Truly, these are the End Days, brought on by Donald, the AntifaChrist.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:25PM (2 children)
previous post ^ brought to you by Qanon
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:39PM (1 child)
You wkuld know, Q gives you all the inside scoops as you suck its weird multipronged cock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:10AM
Actually, there was a very good movie [imdb.com] about this. Not likely to be anywhere close to reality, except that is could be close to reality. Catholic whore spies!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 28 2020, @11:43AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:18PM (2 children)
65% of the U.S. identifies as Christian, and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists make up another ~5%. Good luck with that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:22PM (1 child)
65% of US have a very flexible moral compass it turns out.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:23PM
Weird math but OK.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:42PM (4 children)
That's like asking Charles Manson or Anders Breivik to evaluate whether they're moral or not.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:27PM (3 children)
It's fair to ask if a nominee's moral convictions would interfere with their ability to uphold the Constitution. It's also real to ask how a nominee's moral convictions might influence their rulings on specific matters. I think that's reasonable.
It's a bit different when, instead of focusing on moral convictions, religion is specifically addressed. It should be noted that Catholicism is a minority religion in this country, along with Judaism and Islam. All three have faced significant bigotry and hatred during the history of the US. Although the current crop of white supremacists seems to tolerate Catholics, there's a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in the US. People questioned whether JFK was fit to be President or if he would be loyal to the Pope instead of to the Constitution, not unlike questioning whether Jewish Americans are loyal to the US or to Israel. Catholics were also targets of the KKK's hatred in the early 20th century.
I'd also like to note that Catholics are fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate [wikipedia.org], so being Catholic does not inherently make one highly conservative. On the specific issue of abortion, the views of the Catholic Senators don't quite fall along party lines. Joe Manchin opposes abortion while Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are pro-choice. It wouldn't be fair to say that the Catholics in the Senate who are Democrats are inherently less devout than their Republican colleagues.
The issue shouldn't be about a nominee's religious beliefs. As I've demonstrated, the Catholics in the Senate have a wide range of opinions on the issues. Being a practicing or devout Catholic is not a good predictor of one's beliefs. The issue is actually about whether an individual's moral convictions interfere with their ability to do the job, not about the person's religion. Why make this about religion? Doing so risks stoking bigotry and it isn't helpful.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:32PM (2 children)
Perhaps not, but being a Republican Catholic tends to make one very highly conservative. Newt even converted, so he could be more Conservative.
As well as:
Greg Abbott
Conrad Black
Robert Bork
Laura Ingraham
Bobby Jindal
Lawrence Kudlow
Robert Novak
Joseph Pearce
Erik Prince
Malcolm Turnbull
John Wayne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism [wikipedia.org]
Sincere religious feeling, or an attempt to seize the reigns of powder?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:39AM (1 child)
So you're doubly bigoted - you hate Catholics and conservatives. Got it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday September 28 2020, @03:29AM
Abstinence makes the Church grow Fondlers!
And, read Dostevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" from the Brothers Karamazov. Conservative Catholics are the ones that killed Jesus. Pharasees, Steve Bannon, Brietfarf, all Catholics of the Dark Enlightenment. At least the Jesuits, like Kircher, new how to do counter-reformation right, with more Enlightenment!! But no doubt this is the final move of a conservative Catholic conspiracy to overturn Roe v. Wade, and put the Pope on the Throne of America. And get rid of all those darn Baptists and Pennycosters who used to run the KKK.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:32PM (24 children)
Nothing worthwhile will come from this discussion. The usual suspects will continue shouting at each other and posting personal attacks in comments. The usual low-quality AC spam will favor one side of the debate. Buzzard may well abuse his power yet again, intervening in disputes over moderation or debates over who posted which AC comments. We already know where pretty much everyone on this site stands on this issue. Why must you continue to post articles that are highly unlikely to yield any useful discussion?
There is only one useful way to voice your opinions on this matter. It is done at the ballot box. If you don't like the brinkmanship, incivility, hypocrisy, and abuses of power in politics, make your opinion known at the ballot box. It won't do any good here. This discussion will probably be dominated by a handful of people, the usual suspects, who just want to argue with each other because they enjoy it and want to believe they've won the argument over the same people.
Leave this stuff for the journals.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:45PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:49PM (2 children)
Political topics generate the most participation and the most clicks.
And the only thing that matters is clicks.
You'd know that if you actually lived in the same reality as the rest of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:28PM
"And the only thing that matters is clicks."
Ummmmmm, what reality of SN are you living in?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:45PM
Soylent is supported by the community, not by advertising. Clicks don't make any monetary difference, kimosabe.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by MIRV888 on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:14PM (19 children)
We shouldn't discuss politics ever. It's just plain rude. People are incapable of changing their positions. Free will is an illusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:35PM
At least you got that part right.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:51PM (15 children)
Not so. My positions on things have changed. I used to hold Rachel Maddow in high regard; now I feel sad for her. Jon Stewart remains a sage, and I am sad he has gone and Stephen Colbert remains.
I used to be mostly indifferent about the Second Amendment, which felt vestigial and outdated; now I consider it essential. I used to trust the 3-letter agencies to be on the side of the American people, and indeed, the entire Federal Government with them; now I know they consider the American People the one, true enemy and actually conspire with our enemies against us.
I used to be a Democrat and supported Bernie, but when they took a sharp, sudden turn into identity politics and crazyland I left.
In short, people do change their positions on politics.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:34PM
As Dan Quayle once said, "It is a terrible thing to lose your mind." My condolences, Phoenix.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:35PM (6 children)
And you're gleefully throwing yourself down the same death spiral of self-radicalizing crazy Runaway did. And the more people (*waves*) point it out, the harder and faster you radicalize out of pure aggrieved whinging spite and a burgeoning martyr complex. This is just sad. You were one of the ones I was holding out some hope for several years ago. But you've made your decision, and the results of that decision will haunt you here and hereafter; fairly be ye warned.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:39AM
Praise the Lord Sweet Jesus!!
May God smite their heathen souls!!
Oohhhh, Lordy!
What happened to the organ music?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @01:47AM (4 children)
same death spiral of self-radicalizing crazy Runaway did
That self made man thing? It's a myth. Even asocial assholes have to learn from life's experience. It took an army of loathsome liberals to make me who and what I am today. The republican party is only attractive when it has democrats around for comparison. If we could get rid of the D party, we would appreciate better how horribly ugly the R party is, and get rid of it too.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 28 2020, @05:47AM (3 children)
Offense is taken, not given, as a certain carrion-molesting scavenger-bird 'round these parts says :) You CHOSE to spend your entire life assmad, and this is what it turned you into, you senile old wreck.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @06:10AM (2 children)
The old burning hatred comes through again, LOL. I speak badly of the party, and you sling hate at me personally. What does that mean? Do you have no identity outside of the party? Without identity politics, you are no one? I'm not the internet psychology expert, after all - but we do have you here to explain things!!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:29AM (1 child)
You don't know from hatred, if you think that's hatred. The very fact that you refer to it as "burning" shows your ignorance. Real hate doesn't burn, or even freeze; it's beyond temperature. It's a consuming void. And once you realize that you'll have a few rude epiphanies about yourself...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:54AM
"It's a consuming void." vs "burning". There's a lot of difference? But, I digress. You deny hating in one breath, and in the next, you profess your expertise in hatred.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:55PM
> identity politics and crazyland
You know you're watching a reality TV president, right? The concentrated id of 60 million frustrated white trash underperformers acting out their boss fantasy? Right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:45AM (5 children)
In which case your Second Amendment is worthless. If the government, or the ones you think they serve, really and truly wanted to come after you, short of nukes, SAMs like Stingers, and ATGWs like TOWs, there is nothing you can do to stop them. They already use chemical and incendiary weapons now. Just wait until they really want to bring you under heel. You literally won't see them or their projectiles coming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:26AM (1 child)
Every now and then some idiot with no military knowledge comes up with this "but nukes!" nonsense.
Short of wall-to-wall annihilation, the way that wars are won are boots on the ground. You can soften up a position with artillery, you can overrun it with tanks, you can drop laser-guided munitions on a barn or a tractor or a housing development, but the lesson of history is that this annoys people without removing them from the fight. Want to win? Boots on the ground. This is proven over and over again today - the whole of the Middle East is a petri dish demonstrating it at every level.
And those boots are vulnerable. So even if (hah!) you could get the US military to deliberately take on the people en masse (tricky), without actually taking and holding ground, the most that the military could do would be to wreck a lot of infrastructure and sit back. But the moment that you send soldiers into hostile cities, hills and mountain ranges, they will have to deal with a population, many of whom have similar training, are armed with weapons that reach further and hit harder (for reasons ranging from good to insane), and are on what Sun Tzu called desperate ground.
If it's just half a dozen lunatics as per the Bundy madness, that's one thing. If it's a mass uprising? All bets are off, especially when soldiers refuse to take up arms, desert and/or join the other side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:36AM
But it's the people, and the people's military, up against Runaway, who is a self-admitted asshole that nobody likes. The man got booted from the comment section of Faux News, for God's sake. So, all your talk of insurgency and counter-insurgency sounds like neo-confederates howling "Wolverines", before the American people put them in their place. The South, will lose, again.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 28 2020, @05:52PM (2 children)
The US military has had a devil of a time suppressing guerillas in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are theaters where the rules of engagement are rather permissive. How do you think that same military will fare against a civilian population full of veterans and others who know the tactics and strategy of the military intimately? Suddenly, the US military will go from being the most powerful in the world to a small detachment of British regulars running for their lives from Concord, surrounded by tens of thousands of patriots coming out of the hills. That's even supposing that those regular military decide to obey the orders they're given instead of joining the citizens...
Yes, it's a bit fantastical, but so is your assertion that "there is nothing you can do to stop them."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:41PM (1 child)
Sorry to break it to you, but your boogaloo ain't going down the way you LARPers think it will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @05:41PM
As a matter of curiosity, would you be able to explain how "veterans" translates to "LARPers"?
Asking for a friend.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:19PM (1 child)
OK, it *would* be better if more of those contributing to the discussion could keep things a little bit more "meta" to prevent quite so many threads deteriorating into the kind of back-and-forth sniping that epitomises partisan politics, and also that moderation were applied more appropriately (we have that "Disagree" mod for a reason), but it's still generally a lot more civil than certain other forums tend to be on the subject.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 28 2020, @05:54PM
I agree with you. Most other forums I know are complete echo chambers. Echo chambers nearly always produce purity spirals. Soylent so far retains its sharp-tongued members with lots of views from all parts of the spectrum. That's a good thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:34PM (4 children)
Third-wave feminists have been blaming "all men" for their failures my entire life. In school they would use collective punishment to drive this home. If you were AFAB, you were a "superior being" according to them. Somebody AFAB could not possibly be anti-abortion, and they assured us that no matter what any of us thought of abortion, anybody and everybody AMAB is responsible for attacks on women's rights, especially AMAB women. AMAB women they assured us are bathroom rapists.
Senator Maize Hirono (D-HI) assured us that AMAB people were collectively and severally accountable for all attacks on women's rights, and she advocated for some kind of legislation that would harm AMAB people in retaliation for sexual harassment. Feminists routinely deny that AMAB people can be victims of sexual harassment and assault.
So how could this possibly happen? Is Amy Coney Barrett a transsexual? Is she secretly an AMAB bathroom rapist? Is her menstrual cycle irregular? How is it possible that a wombyn-born-wombyn is against abortion? How is it possible that a menstrual woman is unaware of the history of abortion that strongly indicates that anti-abortion legislation is something new in the capitalist era?
How is this possible?
Or is it more likely that 3rd wave feminism is just simply a right-wing hate group that is incapable of defending my rights and every other woman's rights? Is it more likely that as a right-wing hate group, 3rd wave feminism is totally incapable of advancing women's liberation? 3rd wave feminism is totally incapable of getting us female programmers! 3rd wave feminism is totally incapable of defending our abortion rights! Can 3rd wave feminism defend our rights to work and live independently of men?! Can 3rd wave feminism even defend our voting rights?!
Or are contemporary feminists too busy pursing sexism, injustice, and petty bourgeois ambition for any of that?
Feminism is dead. The truth is that menstrual women are just as capable of throwing our rights in the garbage as any man. We need socialism.
Socialism or barbarism!
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:44PM (2 children)
I finally realized that acronym doesn't mean All Males/Females Are Bastards and the comment makes much more sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:34PM (1 child)
I wasn't aware of that expansion, but yeah not what I meant.
just in case, A[MF]AB = Assigned Male/Female At Birth
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:00PM
Anyone who uses the term "assigned" male/female at birth as though everyone is born indeterminate, broadcasts their own insanity. Only hermaphrodites are assigned a particular sex at birth. All others are unambiguously identified by physical characteristics. It's been long enough that we've listened to these loons acting as though we are all born as some smooth GI Joe or Barbie and Dr. OB-GYN paints on a sex organ of their own choosing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:37PM
...Kurenai, is that you? Holy shit. First of all, if anything it's the second-wavers that are in bed with the hard right at this point; I don't know too many third-wave TERFs, to give a pertinent example. Second, uh...you know what, no, I don't have anything else. What the haemorrhaging fuck.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:00PM (6 children)
If I were accidentally drowning,
* An anarchist would bring a lawn chair and popcorn
* A libertartian would tell me I shouldn't have chosen to swim even though I didn't make a choice
* A conservative would let me drown because I couldn't pay in advance to be saved
* An authoritarian would tell me I'm inferior because I can't breathe water
* A religious nut would tell me it's karma or God's will that I drown
* A communist would break their neck diving in after totally misjudging the dialectic between the surface and the bottom
* A socialist would demand I first commit all my future wealth to paying to train *everybody everywhere* to swim
However,
* A liberal would actually jump in and save me
* A moderate would at least throw me a life jacket
and of course Trump would ask "What's in it for me?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:08PM (5 children)
Why is this flamebait?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:21PM (3 children)
Probably because it falsely ascribes a lot of counterfactual views to a lot of people.
Anarchists might help, for example - or might not. I actually know a few search-and-rescue volunteers, and I'd say more than half of them lean libertarian.
It's just a shitpost.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:28PM (1 child)
i thought it was rather funny.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:40PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:32PM
Yes, proper posts pick one side and shit talk opponents. This one butthurt pretty much everybody who posts here. The lurkers are chuckling, though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @04:19PM
My guess is that suddenly there was just a little bit too much truth in the room. That kind of thing tends to unnerve partisans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:05PM (2 children)
I mean, she lost to Trump. How bad of a candidate to you have to be to lose to Trump? Oh, someone whom 30% of the country thought should be in prison, not the oval office. I used to have a security clearance, count me in. People are serving long sentences for doing much less than HRC did with her email servers.
Now the dems are running Biden. Who for all we know is running around naked in his basement with sparklers in his asscheecks. Who is not running, just hiding, letting Trump self destruct.
To be honest, how long has it been since you've voted for a president that was based on being enthusiastic for your candidate, as opposed to holding your nose and voting for the lesser of 2 evils? It's been since Reagan for me.
To be clear, I'm voting Biden. I like most of what Trump is doing but Trump absolutely has to go.
/ a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris
// Biden won't last the first year
/// The upcoming debates should be interesting. Can good drugs overcome senility? We shall see
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @04:28PM
As someone who does currently hold a security clearance I think your assessment is slightly over the top. In my experience, she would certainly lose her clearance and her job. She might also be facing a hefty fine. But jail time? Not likely. That is usually reserved for people actually selling (or trying to sell) classified information to foreign operatives. Just my $0.02 worth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @04:34PM
So, you are annoyed that Biden has stepped aside to let Trump self destruct on his own? When an opponent is making my case for me I usually find it best to not interrupt them. Also, you might be interested to know that Biden will be facing Trump in their first debate tomorrow! So, he isn't exactly "hiding".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:14PM (14 children)
The Anglosphere I think they call us (USA, UK, Australia etc.). We've drunk that Alt-Wrong koolaide. The advancements of the 20th Century are quickly being undone, from social security to human/women's rights. In fact, here in the UK the rule of law is under thread from none other than the Conservative Party, "the party of law and order" who are openly planning and have voted to break international law. We even have a Home Secretary who openly advocates the return of the Death Penalty and an Attorney General whose debating style is to question her opponent's "patriotism" when cornered. You should see the giant lorry (truck) park we're building in Kent, the Carpark of England. Not only that, we were going to appoint a crazy former Australian Prime Minister as our trade envoy. It's almost as if we want to die.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:30PM
You don't say? With 12 or more video surveillance cameras on every corner, how can that possibly be?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:16PM (8 children)
Which one? Although international law was made to be broken anyway.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:37PM (4 children)
Spoken like a true Nazi! You amaze me, takyon! Out of the closet, are we?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:48PM (3 children)
Spoken like a true anonymous scumbag. Any country can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, and laws don't matter without enforcement. The UK will get away with its Brexit, for now.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:06PM (1 child)
Treaties, yes. But not international law. Once the majority of nations have signed on, even non-signatories are bound by law. Just try to argue that you did not agree to the Convention on Genocide, of the Hague Conventions, or the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Evidently you know not of which you speak, takyon. Brush up a little, lest you find yourself before the ICC.
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:19PM
International law works in theory, as long as countries cooperate or other countries impose force on the non-compliant country.
There is a soft genocide going on in China right now, but good luck getting most of the world to put at stop to that, or even impose sanctions.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 28 2020, @01:24AM
It may not get away with the hard border. Oh, the Troubles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:47PM (2 children)
This has some serious implications in the eyes of Johnson's critics. Firstly, because it's kind of like a screwed-up version of the scene in Empire Strikes Back where Darth amends his "arrangment" with Lando, only the Tories like to see the EU as the Evil Empire and they're the ones making the implicit "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" threat. Secondly because the UK is going to need some trade deals with key trading partners *fast* if we default to WTO in January, and who in their right mind is going to sign a trade deal with a country that is demonstrably willing to renage on its promises within months of signing until they've gone through the legalese with a fine toothcomb to make sure any such action have suitable protections and penalties attached. For those sectors of the UK economy where WTO definitely won't work out well, e.g. by adding significant additional export tariffs making them less cost effective, this could well be a death knell.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:11PM (1 child)
The EU was not negotiating in "best endeavours, in good faith", [capx.co] a material breach of the WA.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:16AM
"Good faith" does not mean, "give the other side everything they want for nothing in return."
(Score: 4, Funny) by deimtee on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:02PM (3 children)
On behalf of Australia we'd like to express our very sincere thanks for your "taking one for the team" in moving him to the UK.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday September 28 2020, @12:42PM (2 children)
Although we are dreading the time the return favour's due.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by corey on Monday September 28 2020, @11:50PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:20AM
You just gave me a vision of Boris in budgie smugglers.
And I just KNOW that any amount of beer won't be enough to make it go away.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:26PM (14 children)
The fact that they're pushing through this unprecedented nomination is a good indicator of how Trump and the GOP see their chances in the upcoming election.
Their window is closing.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:31PM (8 children)
You could be right. Trump will have to submit his next nomination to a left leaning Senate. That will mean a more centrist nomination, I suppose. Centrists are good though.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:49PM (2 children)
If Trump thought he was gonna win, he wouldn't be doing this. The probability of the GOP retaining the Senate is much higher than the GOP retaining the White House.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:19PM (1 child)
I don't really expect it, but I would be amused by a Trump landslide. I really want to see the progressive "left" picking their asses up off the floor, so they can skulk off into hiding. I would positively LOVE to see a defeated DNC come out next election with some honest candidates who can appeal to normal people who love America. This Biden pony show? Phhhtt.
You and I don't interact a lot, so I'll state it plainly here: If the DNC had nominated Bernie, there's some chance I might have voted for him. If the DNC had nominated Tulsi, I WOULD have voted for her. Establishment Joe? That is almost as sick a joke as Bloomberg running for president.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:10PM
We need to make sure the House goes Republican and the Senate stays Republican. Otherwise it will be "impeachment! impeachment! impeachment1" all over again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:12PM (4 children)
How cute, Runaway normalizing a fraudulent election with a little dictator undermining the election itself and specifically stating he will try and use his packing of the supreme court to steal it if he loses.
Whatever happened to your anger about government tyranny?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:23PM (3 children)
You're not keeping up. I have stated elsewhere that my only interest in Trump was his potential to appoint Supreme Court justices. The Second Amendment needs to be upheld, and strengthened, among other things.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:44PM (2 children)
Don't worry, I heard you, but you are still assuming Trump will win despite him having less support than in 2016. He is openly fascist and stated he will ignore the results of the election at the same time he is subverting our election systems.
Can't say you surprise me, but still gotta call out your shit.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:03PM
> He is openly fascist
He's an individualist, the "fascist" label was used after an interview with Steve Bannon where he cited Lenin's dismantling of the state as political inspiration. BLM and Antifa attempting to destroy the state have more in common with fascism (a rebirth) than MAGA (a revival).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:40PM
He's stated that he's "made common cause" with these people, end of story. He actually thinks he's using *them* instead of the other way around. And no matter how many times I or others warn him that laying down with rabid dogs means getting up with fleas is the least of his worries, he's committed himself.
Basically, he's not a Nazi, don't call him a Nazi, but he thinks they have some good points and might be useful in getting rid of some people^W things he and they just happen to mutually agree need gotten rid of. :/
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:05PM (4 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency [wikipedia.org]
What's unprecedented about it?
On the contrary, appointing conservative Supreme Court justices is the only thing that many of his voters care about. If he doesn't do it, he's not doing his job.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-navigating-competing-demands-evangelicals-over-supreme-court-pick-n1240997 [nbcnews.com]
There is this game theorist's take on the situation [thehill.com]. The assumptions made could be entirely incorrect.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:20PM (2 children)
There hasn't been a justice nominated this close to an election since the Civil War, and there has never been a justice nominated after voting had already begun.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:38PM (1 child)
That is interesting. Early voting [wikipedia.org] is much more prevalent today. But it doesn't matter. Hundreds of thousands have voted even before the first Presidential debate. Is that a good thing?
But the worst is yet to come. Trump can LOSE the election and still nominate a Supreme Court justice and/or have one confirmed during the lame duck session. All it currently requires is 50 votes in the Senate.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday September 28 2020, @02:18AM
That's all true, but it's still unprecedented.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:25PM
> There is this game theorist's take on the situation [thehill.com].
Thanks for the link! I think I'm amplifying the points you already made.
Trump appointing a supreme court justice now is an obvious win for him, the Republican party, and people who voted for him. It's a slam dunk.
Failure to act would result in unhappy supporters right before an election. That's never a good thing.
But the article suggests Trump should wait because . . .
1. Maybe the appointment will galvanize Democrat voters, and then
2. Maybe Democrats will win the house and senate, and then
3. Maybe the Democrats will abolish the filibuster and expand the size of the Supreme Court, and then
4. Maybe the Trump nomination won't be as effective as it might have been.
That's some impressive mental gymnastics! I give it a 10.