It seems as though FedSoc grooming is designed to create judges who are not only hell bent on reaching reactionary outcomes, but don’t especially care how they get there.
the mind boggles at that drag performance ruling. Basically to have standing you have to show that what you did was obscene and obscene things have no protection. Yup.
The "offensive to community standards" part of any obscenity law has always befuddled me, but this law highlights it. A WOMAN performing, say, Juliet's balcony scene would be ok, but an actor in drag performing it would "offend" so it's out of bounds?
Forgive me but I’m losing faith in lawyers. I was married to a litigator for 25 years+ and had tremendous respect for our justice system. Since 2016 I’ve been saying “no worries, the lawyers will fix it.” Now I have no words.
Mathis’s dissenting opinion ... made a strong argument on the merits."
Unfortunately, that's just not good enough these days, not when we have fanatic judges ruling in effect that you can't challenge a law unless you prove you are breaking it and if you do, that just proves you're guilty because the law is valid - a ruling better expressed as "heads I win, tails you lose."
Not when we have judges with hang-ups about sex and sexuality deep enough to rule that, among other things, even drag shows and go-go dancers ("Go-go dancers?" Really??) are inherently "harmful to minors."
Not when we have judges finding the phrase "could be" seen by a minor - not "would be" or "would likely be" or "could reasonably be expected to be," but merely "could be"- is NOT unconstitutionally vague and does NOT positively invite discriminatory enforcement.
Not when we have judges who employ the sneering, condescending dismissal of (paraphrasing slightly) "go and do the hard work of convincing state legislatures" literally at the same time as you tell them that the main method of bringing political pressure - the vote - is denied them.
What we are seeing, especially in that last example, is the emergence of what Viktor Orban dubbed "illiberal democracy," otherwise known as "the tyranny of the majority" - meaning "We are the majority so we'll do whatever we flipping well want. You don't like it? TS. You may think you have rights, but remember that we interpret what they mean."
They are not, in fact, the majority, but enough of us are disengaged or discouraged or disinformed that they have positions of power that enable them to act as if they are and use those positions to further entrench themselves and their warped ideology.
We face hard times and I confess I have a combination of short-term despair and long-term hope. But I also think we have to be prepared to be aggressive with more than words and frankly with more than voting. I don't mean violence, I don't mean rioting, acting like we were a bunch of right-wingers - but I do mean being in the streets, being visible, including mass civil disobedience.
But I'll end this screed on a moment of hope. The reason the right wing is trying so hard, pulling every trick, grabbing and pulling on every lever of power they can find, is because they know that in the long run of history they are going to lose and like King Canute in the popular version of the story, they are trying to hold back the tide. Like him, they will fail. It's up to us to determine how long that will be.
The disenfranchisement decision is offensive, but I fear this Supreme Court would agree with it.
We saw what it thought of the 8A in June. The dissent in part relied on death penalty cases this majority would overturn if they could. The non-capital ones would be applied narrowly.
It's the job of lower courts to apply the law as is so the dissent was correct to do so.
Equating loss of voting rights to loss of a profession is absurd. Someone can train for another profession. Unless you leave the country you can’t regain any right to vote, assuming you can gain citizenship elsewhere. That raises a legal question I don’t have the answer to. If someone loses the right to vote in say Mississippi can they move to another state, establish residency and regain the right to vote or does this follow them?
A lifetime voting ban means people can effectively be stripped of their citizenship. This is a backdoor way of reasserting slavery.
It seems as though FedSoc grooming is designed to create judges who are not only hell bent on reaching reactionary outcomes, but don’t especially care how they get there.
the mind boggles at that drag performance ruling. Basically to have standing you have to show that what you did was obscene and obscene things have no protection. Yup.
The "offensive to community standards" part of any obscenity law has always befuddled me, but this law highlights it. A WOMAN performing, say, Juliet's balcony scene would be ok, but an actor in drag performing it would "offend" so it's out of bounds?
Forgive me but I’m losing faith in lawyers. I was married to a litigator for 25 years+ and had tremendous respect for our justice system. Since 2016 I’ve been saying “no worries, the lawyers will fix it.” Now I have no words.
Makes me very sad.
Mathis’s dissenting opinion ... made a strong argument on the merits."
Unfortunately, that's just not good enough these days, not when we have fanatic judges ruling in effect that you can't challenge a law unless you prove you are breaking it and if you do, that just proves you're guilty because the law is valid - a ruling better expressed as "heads I win, tails you lose."
Not when we have judges with hang-ups about sex and sexuality deep enough to rule that, among other things, even drag shows and go-go dancers ("Go-go dancers?" Really??) are inherently "harmful to minors."
Not when we have judges finding the phrase "could be" seen by a minor - not "would be" or "would likely be" or "could reasonably be expected to be," but merely "could be"- is NOT unconstitutionally vague and does NOT positively invite discriminatory enforcement.
Not when we have judges who employ the sneering, condescending dismissal of (paraphrasing slightly) "go and do the hard work of convincing state legislatures" literally at the same time as you tell them that the main method of bringing political pressure - the vote - is denied them.
What we are seeing, especially in that last example, is the emergence of what Viktor Orban dubbed "illiberal democracy," otherwise known as "the tyranny of the majority" - meaning "We are the majority so we'll do whatever we flipping well want. You don't like it? TS. You may think you have rights, but remember that we interpret what they mean."
They are not, in fact, the majority, but enough of us are disengaged or discouraged or disinformed that they have positions of power that enable them to act as if they are and use those positions to further entrench themselves and their warped ideology.
We face hard times and I confess I have a combination of short-term despair and long-term hope. But I also think we have to be prepared to be aggressive with more than words and frankly with more than voting. I don't mean violence, I don't mean rioting, acting like we were a bunch of right-wingers - but I do mean being in the streets, being visible, including mass civil disobedience.
But I'll end this screed on a moment of hope. The reason the right wing is trying so hard, pulling every trick, grabbing and pulling on every lever of power they can find, is because they know that in the long run of history they are going to lose and like King Canute in the popular version of the story, they are trying to hold back the tide. Like him, they will fail. It's up to us to determine how long that will be.
The disenfranchisement decision is offensive, but I fear this Supreme Court would agree with it.
We saw what it thought of the 8A in June. The dissent in part relied on death penalty cases this majority would overturn if they could. The non-capital ones would be applied narrowly.
It's the job of lower courts to apply the law as is so the dissent was correct to do so.
Equating loss of voting rights to loss of a profession is absurd. Someone can train for another profession. Unless you leave the country you can’t regain any right to vote, assuming you can gain citizenship elsewhere. That raises a legal question I don’t have the answer to. If someone loses the right to vote in say Mississippi can they move to another state, establish residency and regain the right to vote or does this follow them?
This does not follow them.
For all who can, move to Washington State
Eugene Edward Siler Jr. was originally a Ford appointee.
We have moved some from where we were with felony disenfranchisement when it was flagged as an issue in 2000. We clearly have some ways to go.
Yes, at the district court level.