Tumpik
#us supreme court
onlyhereforangst · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
fuck this handmaids tale country.
25K notes · View notes
dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
15K notes · View notes
sweaterstitches · 5 months ago
Text
hey, so if you haven’t heard, político published a document leaked from the united states supreme court tonight.
that document, while not yet set into law, shows that the supreme court voted to overturn all federal laws protecting the right to abortion in the united states of america.
these prior rulings, roe and casey were decided on the basis that the surveillance of abortion as a medical procedure violated the fourth amendment of the united states constitution, which protects our right to privacy.
this decision will impact more than just abortion.
it will impact gender-affirming care, the drugs you’re prescribed, the surgeries and procedures you undergo.
if you’re marginalized, i’m so sorry, we basically just lost hipaa protections for us.
if this doesn’t directly impact you, donate to planned parenthood, to the trans lifeline, to your local abortion funds and mutual aid funds. protect our privacy.
16K notes · View notes
thoughtportal · 3 months ago
Photo
Tumblr media
2K notes · View notes
fernreads · 3 months ago
Link
The Supreme Court handed down a decision on Wednesday which effectively gives Border Patrol agents who violate the Constitution total immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in Egbert v. Boule, moreover, has implications that stretch far beyond the border. Egbert guts a seminal Supreme Court precedent, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), which established that federal law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution may be individually sued — and potentially be required to compensate their victims for their illegal actions.
Egbert is a severe blow to the broader project of police accountability. While it does not target lawsuits against state law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution, it all but eliminates the public’s ability to sue border patrol officers — and possibly all federal officers — who commit similar violations.
In fairness, Egbert does indicate that people who believe their rights were violated by federal law enforcement may file a grievance with the law enforcement agency that employs the officer who allegedly violated the Constitution. But such grievances will be investigated by other law enforcement officers, and no court or other agency can review a law enforcement officer’s decision to exonerate a fellow officer.
And, perhaps most importantly, Egbert most likely shuts down a civil rights plaintiffs’ ability to be compensated if their rights are violated.
2K notes · View notes
haberdashing · 5 months ago
Text
my two cents on The Leak, as someone who is not a lawyer but does have some training in the american legal field:
one of the biggest deals about this is that it ignores if not outright overturns the doctrine of stare decisis.
stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in latin, and it’s pretty much what that implies: the legal doctrine that says that once a matter has been decided by a court, it can’t be overturned willy-nilly. higher courts overturning lower courts, sure, but once the supreme court makes a decision, that’s supposed to be It.
admittedly, stare decisis has been overcome in the past, like in brown v. board with the whole “separate but equal” thing that the supreme court created originally and then decided wasn’t valid. but that was, like, a whole-ass century in between decisions, and during that century, a lot changed, including but not limited to race relations stuff that was directly related to the “separate but equal” doctrine.
roe v. wade was in 1973. that’s not even 50 years ago. and i think even conservatives would be hard-pressed to suggest that some sort of societal change in the last forty-nine years has made abortion less legally acceptable somehow.
roe v. wade getting overturned would be bad enough in and of itself, but the way it’s phrased in the leaked draft suggests that stare decisis is no longer being respected, and that opens the door for a lot of important supreme court decisions to be overturned.
obergefell allowing gay marriage? loving v. virginia allowing interracial marriage? the supreme court case that said the civil rights act protects gay and trans employees? griswold v. connecticut that said states can’t ban birth control? any number of supreme court cases that establish rights fundamental to living in a society?
yeah, that’s all potentially up for grabs now, too.
if we don’t do something to prevent the conservative-dominated supreme court from striking down every liberal case in not-too-distant history... well, it ain’t gonna be pretty.
909 notes · View notes
goddess-help-us · 3 months ago
Text
US Democracy: Close to Death
Pardon my language.
But we are f*cked. Yesterday (June 30, 2022), SCOTUS agreed to hear “Moore v. Harper” on its fall 2022 docket. This case deals with the authority of states to run elections (see more detail later on)*. The conservative-majority court will likely rule in favor of Moore, which would let Republican-held state legislatures appoint their own electors in the electoral college, ignoring the popular vote. In essence, Republicans wouldn’t have to repeat Jan. 6 in the future. They could simply use Republican-held statehouses to reject election results they don’t like, ending free and fair elections in the US.
Presently, there are not enough votes for Congress or the President to do anything to stop this. Congress could potentially impeach Justice Thomas for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection but the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority Senate vote to convict a sitting Supreme Court justice. Sufficient support for this does not exist in the Senate, and is not likely to exist at any time soon. 
There is only one real, legal recourse to this threat: obtaining a true Democratic majority in the US Senate, which we do not have. Senators Manchin and Sinema are unreliable at best and potentially plants at worst. They support neither the reform of or conditional exemption to the filibuster, nor “packing the court.” We need two additional Democratic senators to make their spoiler-effect opposition irrelevant. A 52-member Democratic Senate would allow the filibuster to be bypassed and open the way for the Judiciary Act to pass, which would allow President Biden to add four additional Supreme Court justice seats to reign in this current slow-motion right-wing coup. Don’t think abolishing the filibuster is right? See additional text later.**
How do we get two additional Democratic votes in the Senate? There are currently two highly-competitive Senate races for seats held by Republicans in the midterms this November: Pennsylvania (Dr. Oz (R) vs. John Fetterman (D)) and Wisconsin (party nominees undecided, primary scheduled Aug. 9, 2022). The Dems also need to hold onto every seat they currently occupy. This includes other highly-competitive seats in: Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. I’ve never campaigned for anyone in my life before but today I signed up to volunteer with John Fetterman’s campaign because I feel like this is important. 
I can’t tell anybody what to do this information, I can only provide it. But I hope that people who value laws, regulations, and policies that support the social, economic, environmental, and democratic wellbeing of a society can recognize when those things are at stake (and they are). The Republicans and their right-wing evangelical supporters know that the 2022 midterm and 2024 general elections are the last chance they have to impose their religious agenda on the country. They know the majority of Americans do not support an elimination of abortion, the banning of LGBT people from public life, or the continuous denial of the climate crisis. That is why they are using the Supreme Court to take action right before these critical elections. They should not get away with this. 
“I’m too anxious or burnt to do anything.” That’s true. It’s been an exhausting past two years. But, for myself, I hate to think of the regret I might have in 2024 when a Republican-held Court, White House, and Congress enact a nationwide federal ban on abortion or LGBT people. Do I want to ask myself at that time, “was there anything else I could have done?” “Electoralism doesn’t work.” I sympathize.*** Often times it feels we elect people who don’t ultimately do anything. But I guarantee that voting will become even more of a token gesture in the future under the likely Moore v. Harper ruling if it’s allowed to proceed unchecked. “The Nation is already f*cked, there’s no point in saving it. We should just let the inevitable balkanization of America happen.” While I think current inflation and supply chains are bad, I can’t imagine how much worse they will be when the nationwide networks of food, medicine, water, household goods, consumer electronics, et al. are subject to tariffs and various petty interregional conflicts that the federal government currently mediates. Yes, the US will cease to exist one day, but let that be a day when we decide that we no longer need the federal government to aid us in living healthful, rich lives, not because of a right-wing coup. 
Thank you for your time if you've read this far.
*Moore v. Harper is a Supreme Court writ of certiorari between Thomas Moore, the Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and Rebecca Harper, a North Carolina citizen who is collectively filing with other North Carolinians against the Speaker. The case has to do with a Feb. 2022 North Carolina Supreme Court decision that threw out the State Legislature’s election map as gerrymandered. The NC Supreme Court ruled that the maps adopted by the NC Legislature violated the NC Constitution. The NC Supreme Court adopted remedial election maps in their place. Speaker Moore, in turn, filed a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS that it accepted June 30. The NC Republicans believe the US Constitution does not allow state supreme courts jurisprudence over elections and that state legislatures should be able to run and organize elections exclusively. SCOTUS has continuously ruled, however, since 1916 (Davis v. Hildebrant) and as recently as 2015 (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) that the Constitution does not give unilateral election-running authority to a state legislature but rather to the public or a state’s constitution. The likely SCOTUS ruling in the fall on Moore v. Harper would overturn over a century’s worth of precedent and allow sitting state legislatures to blatantly gerrymander election maps and even the ability to ignore the popular vote.
**Don’t think abolishing the filibuster is right? The US Constitution does not support the use of the filibuster and does not require a two-thirds vote for laws. It only specifies that a two-thirds majority be used for: censure, expulsion, conviction, and treaty approval. The Senate has reformed the filibuster throughout US history. Senators used to be able to simply filibuster a motion out of the Senate without any accountability. In 1917, the Senate changed its rules to allow a two-thirds majority vote to end debate, the first such check on the filibuster. In 1975, the Senate changes its rules again and dropped this threshold from 67 to 60 senators. Clearly, the Senate has a history of changing its own rules as allowed by Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution. It is perfectly reasonable and constitutional to either reform or end the use of the filibuster.
***Yes, electoralism is not the end-be-all of civic engagement. It is the bare minimum. If you want more than casting a vote then (good news): there’s a wealth of civil society and community-based organizations out there waiting for your talent, energy, and expertise. Getting involved can connect you to additional resources. And, yes, support mutual aid requests as you are able but mutual aid is not a replacement for actual, scalable human services, like medicine, professional care, electronic infrastructure and services, formal education, et al. that our federal state provides. This is not an “one or the other” decision. All of the tools are here. Use all of them as you are able. Campaign, vote, organize, donate, spread awareness. All of it. And anybody calling for a violent revolution is clueless. The right-wing white supremacists have been preparing for this moment four four decades, with ready-to-mobilize militias. There are no comparable and scalable left-wing militia organizations to counter this. Sure, join your local Socialist Rifle Association but SRA, as it stands now, is simply not comparable to the organization that right-wing extremists currently have. And once you have outed yourself as an active leftist gun user (in the same way that white militias use theirs), you can forget about your constitutional rights. The longer-term solution is to create locally-based power that can resist overreaches by state and federal governments.
619 notes · View notes
dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 months ago
Text
The European Parliament voted 324-155, with 38 abstentions, to condemn the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade and demand that abortion rights be enshrined in the EU’s fundamental rights charter.
Why It Matters: The Supreme Court's decision last month to end federal protections for abortion was widely denounced by world leaders and human rights organizations.
• In the wake of the ruling, lawmakers in  Israel and France have taken steps to shore up their domestic protections for abortion.
The Big Picture: In the resolution, European MEPs expressed their solidarity with American women and girls and called for the U.S. Congress to pass federal protections for abortion, according to a European Parliament press release.
• The resolution called for EU countries to provide "safe, legal and free abortion services, pre-natal and maternal healthcare services, voluntary family planning, youth-friendly services, and HIV prevention, treatment and support, without discrimination."
What They're Saying: "The United States has clearly shown why we must use every tool available to safeguard abortion rights in the European Union,” said Stéphane Séjourné, the president of the liberal Renew Europe group in the EU Parliament, AP reported.
• “It teaches us a lesson: Women’s and girls’ human rights can never be taken for granted, and we must always fight to defend them,” Helene Fritzon, a Swedish politician who is vice president of a parliamentary alliance of Socialists and Democrats, added, per AP.
374 notes · View notes
queenhelenblackthorn · 5 months ago
Text
Learning that Roe v Wade is going to be officially struck down by the Supreme Court while I'm screaming about a bunch of celebrities not being on theme at the Met Gala is really dystopian. Like Hunger Games dystopian.
534 notes · View notes
callese · 5 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
293 notes · View notes
contemplatingoutlander · 22 days ago
Link
Tumblr media
Right-wing, white, “Christians” have a long history of using the Bible to assert their right to discriminate against others. Case in point, the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptists in 1845 over whether slaveowners could be missionaries. Southern Baptist leaders used the Bible to justify slavery, and later to justify segregation.
Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU writes a compelling column questioning how today’s right-wing, white, “Christians” are attempting to use the First Amendment as license to discriminate against:
The LGBTQ+ community in numerous ways.
Women’s and other’s rights to contraception and abortion.
Pregnant, unmarried female employees.
People with opioid use disorder who use medication-assisted treatment.
Jewish, Catholic, and same-sex couples who want to adopt or foster children.
Dying people who want to consider “end of life options.” 
Emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s religious right is pressing in courts nationwide for what amounts to a sweeping right to discriminate. [...] For the past decade, the American Civil Liberties Union has tracked cases invoking a religious right to discriminate, and we’ve never been more alarmed. The sheer number of these cases has exploded. In 2012, the first ACLU report documenting them came in at seven single-spaced pages. The most recent report runs close to 30.
The scope of these claims has also mushroomed. [...] These efforts are simply incompatible with a pluralistic constitutional democracy that values both equality and religious freedom. Religious freedom, after all, doesn’t mean a right to hurt others.
[...] In a recent speech, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., quoting scripture, implored “champions of religious liberty” to “go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves” to challenge the “growing hostility to religion” in America. The justice, who penned the Hobby Lobby opinion, now has a solid majority hungry to give these “champions” whatever they want. [...] We have been here before. In the mid-1960s, a white supremacist who refused to serve Black people at his South Carolina barbecue restaurants argued that he was entitled to a religious exemption from the newly enacted Civil Rights Act. His lawyers told a trial court that the owner believed “as a matter of faith that racial intermixing or any contribution thereto contravenes the will of God,” and therefore enforcing the Civil Rights Act against him “constitute[d] State interference with the free practice of his religion.” The Supreme Court dismissed the argument as “patently frivolous.”
Champions of this “patently frivolous” claim are back before a remade Supreme Court. Half a century ago, the court snuffed out the flame on claims that religious freedom gave institutions the right to violate anti-discrimination laws. This time, it is lighting the match.
[emphasis added]
233 notes · View notes
mcbangle · 3 months ago
Text
I’ve been numbly reading about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down NY’s concealed carry law and I’m just devastated. With all the news about the expected upcoming Roe v Wade decision this was not on my radar at all. It never once occurred to me that the Supreme Court with expand gun rights in this way and in the wake of so many horrific mass shootings.
There is something very wrong with my country, and I worry that we will be living with the repercussions for decades.
162 notes · View notes
dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
1K notes · View notes
tomorrowusa · 5 months ago
Photo
Tumblr media
There is an election coming up in November. NOW is the time to start preparing for it. The recent confirmation hearings for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson are just the latest reminder that Republicans have no agenda except to obstruct good governance and promote crackpot Trumpist conspiracy theories.
Ukraine didn’t suddenly get good militarily on the day Putin invaded. They have been preparing and upgrading their defenses since Russia’s unlawful seizure of Crimea.
Similarly, we should not wait until September to get interested in the 2022 midterms. Given the numerous attempts by Republican-run states to restrict access to the vote, now is the time to register to vote and get others registered as well. If there are any problems with registration, you’ll have plenty of time to sort them out.
I Will Vote
And it’s never too early to start volunteering to help candidates. The president is only the tip of the iceberg of elected officials in the US. There are thousands of downballot races for both chambers of Congress, the state legislatures, and statewide offices. Democratic candidates in all 50 states need your help.
Elections – or wars – are not won by slackers.
152 notes · View notes
lifeofdai · 2 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.” — George Carlin
115 notes · View notes
fernreads · 3 months ago
Text
In a historic reversal, the Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and ruled states may again outlaw abortion.
The court’s conservative majority said the Constitution does not protect the rights of women to choose abortion, and instead leaves these decisions in the hands of state lawmakers.
The 5-4 ruling marks the most significant curtailing of an established constitutional right in the court’s history.
The opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. closely tracks a draft which was leaked by Politico on May 2nd.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented in the Mississippi case.
The ruling figures to set off a fierce political fight nationwide and state-by-state as politicians and voters weigh in on whether abortion should be restricted or prohibited entirely.
Opinion polls show most Americans support access to abortion, at least in the early months of a pregnancy. Nevertheless half the states are expected to seek to quickly enforce laws that make most abortions illegal.
The decision is the high court’s most far-reaching reversal on a matter of constitutional rights since 1954, when the justices reversed six decades of precedent and struck down laws authorizing racial segregation.
683 notes · View notes
daughter-of-rowan · 6 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
To be the first is to be scrutinized, vilified, and crucified. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has withstood this with strength and grace.
312 notes · View notes