SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[arus2001]

No one's saying there wouldn't be kicking, fighting, screaming and teeth gnashing from a minimum 30%. The point is to still do good things that would still benefit them even if they may not immediately realize it.

[Spicyryan]

Seriously though can you name one advancement in civil liberties and progress that wasn't a decades long undertaking? You all seem to think we just vote in your people and all the problems in the world will be solved in a single election cycle.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

No one is advocating for Rome to be built in a day. What I am advocating is that your choice of "punt and pray" is not a choice I agree with nor is it practical. It's why the Dems continue moving right.

Even more confusing is you started with "your people will never win" and now we are at "do you really think if your people win it will solve every problem in the world in one cycle?" Directly after the prior statement on taking decades. Com'on.

Being a centrist truly is a baffling and awful world of fog and dismay.

[Mrbeansman]

We're almost certainly about to see a codifing of gay marriage with the bipartisanship and comprise you detest so much. Twenty years ago even saying you supported gay rights was political suicide. The idea that the dems are being pushed to the right literally doesn't match up with what is actually happening on the hill.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

We're almost certainly about to see a codifing of gay marriage with the bipartisanship and comprise you detest so much. Twenty years ago even saying you supported gay rights was political suicide. The idea that the dems are being pushed to the right literally doesn't match up with what is actually happening on the hill.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I don't detest compromise. I just detest your notion of compromise.

Also, why do you think the Dems own gay rights? They certainly don't. They certainly weren't there 20 years ago. Fuck, they weren't even there 10 years ago for it.
Being for gay marriage doesn't determine how left or right you are politically. That's why it's a good "bipartisan" issue.

[Mrbeansman]

I don't detest compromise. I just detest your notion of compromise.

Also, why do you think the Dems own gay rights? They certainly don't. They certainly weren't there 20 years ago. Fuck, they weren't even there 10 years ago for it.
Being for gay marriage doesn't determine how left or right you are politically. That's why it's a good "bipartisan" issue.

And I'm not a centrist I genuinely belive in what you and far left are pushing, but I'm not gonna destroy lives when I know full and well that those ideals are political suicide in the current climate. It's not about protecting the status quo it's about protecting the progress that's already been made because while it takes hours to build a grand sand castle it only takes 10 seconds for your shit head brother to come over and stomp all over it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

I don't like the idea of needing another 20 years for maybe Universal Healthcare, either. "People are suffering now," is something I've said a lot over the years here, and incrementalism is diametrically opposed to aiding people in the moment. Now extend this to a living wage, the cost of housing, not getting shot by a cop for being black, etc.. Personally, my own interpretations of solutions may not be perfect, but I'd rather try than not. It's not like wiser minds can't take the ball and run, either.

[Mrbeansman]

So the fuck what if people are suffering now. This is what pisses me off about the far left they have zero regard for the people who will be suffer if they fail.

[thetruepandagod]

they must burn for the cause

[NynJa]

So the fuck what if people are suffering now. This is what pisses me off about the far left they have zero regard for the people who will be suffer if they fail.

Suffering is subjective
For you, you die
For them, they stand to lose 2% of their net worth and they might as well die

[Spicyryan]

I don't like the idea of needing another 20 years for maybe Universal Healthcare, either. "People are suffering now," is something I've said a lot over the years here, and incrementalism is diametrically opposed to aiding people in the moment. Now extend this to a living wage, the cost of housing, not getting shot by a cop for being black, etc.. Personally, my own interpretations of solutions may not be perfect, but I'd rather try than not. It's not like wiser minds can't take the ball and run, either.

You see, there is a difference between feeling bad while looking out for yourself and actual solidarity as well as actual sensible societal structure. Mrbeansman would do well to understand that, and then these whacky things being said will make more sense.

Because:

And I'm not a centrist I genuinely belive in what you and far left are pushing, but I'm not gonna destroy lives when I know full and well that those ideals are political suicide in the current climate. It's not about protecting the status quo it's about protecting the progress that's already been made because while it takes hours to build a grand sand castle it only takes 10 seconds for your shit head brother to come over and stomp all over it.

Really shows me they are only in denial about being genuine, and think it would be nice despite your big half-hearted endorsement of the thought. If you truly believed then you wouldn't default center and away from what you claim to support as you convince yourself otherwise. If you argue against the mere viability to this extent then it isn't something you believe in. It really is about that status quo and the place your existence occupies in it. Which isn't about attacking you. I couldn't care less about that, honestly. I do however, try to call it as I see it.

[kuronosan]

This is quite possibly the greatest exchange in this thread yet. More wine!

[Spicyryan]

So the fuck what if people are suffering now. This is what pisses me off about the far left they have zero regard for the people who will be suffer if they fail.

Jesus fucking christ.

You can go be worth nothing then to the system you protect, honestly. Go suck up to the right because that fish hook is looking mighty apt. Absolutely fucking astounding that you to sit there and claim to believe in something only in the next breath to condemn those for having "zero regard" if they fail. This makes an Eric Andre meme right now. <gun shot> "How could the left fail like this?!"

[kuronosan]

We should just ask Elphaba to come back. She'll solve this shit real quick.

[Cyn]

You mean the DNC favors candidates that can actually win elections shockedpikachu.gif.

Oh, like Hillary?

And I'm not a centrist I genuinely belive in what you and far left are pushing, but I'm not gonna destroy lives when I know full and well that those ideals are political suicide in the current climate. It's not about protecting the status quo it's about protecting the progress that's already been made because while it takes hours to build a grand sand castle it only takes 10 seconds for your shit head brother to come over and stomp all over it.

Most of the recent progress on liberal issues only happened because of years of the "far left" pushing for it. Even as recently as a decade ago there was a centrist Dem president publicly stating that he believed that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. While I agree that there are definitely people trying to take things too far left for the general populace to accept it, giving centrists credit for liberal victories is bonkers.

[Spicyryan]

Did you know that the gays only gained the right to marry after defeating the horde of extreme leftists standing in their way to pass bipartisan legislation?! Man, the more you know. Take that leftists who generally don't oppose such equitable treatment as their platform is based on it!

If only viable candidates existed. It does—yah know—start with the discourse of ideas though, and deciding what we really want to idealogically fight for, but hey, let's be real.

[Mrbeansman]

Did you know that the gays only gained the right to marry after defeating the horde of extreme leftists standing in their way to pass bipartisan legislation?! Man, the more you know. Take that leftists who generally don't oppose such equitable treatment as their platform is based on it!

If only viable candidates existed. It does—yah know—start with the discourse of ideas though, and deciding what we really want to idealogically fight for, but hey, let's be real.

They gained it from that thing you constantly say isn't worth supporting dems for and which you just let the right piss over by refusing to be a fucking grown up and voting.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

They gained it via Supreme Court decision which the Court has actively signaled they're looking to overturn now with the Christofascist majority.

Only get one guess as to which party might take up passing an actual federal law protecting gay marriage if they're in power come January though.

[archibaldcrane]

https://twitter.com/IDprisonproject/...kliVDNUmQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/IDprisonproject/...BuO65Cstg&s=19

[Spicyryan]

https://twitter.com/IDprisonproject/...kliVDNUmQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/IDprisonproject/...BuO65Cstg&s=19

The harder reactionary states like Idaho attempt to hold on to this. The more they energize the public opinion against it and push the gelatinous entity that is the center. To—even though most don't personally "believe" in abortion—take the stance of permitting it.

[Zealot]

Arguments been going on since early today with the conservative Justices signaling pretty clearly that they're going to end affirmative action. They're making the case (for the attorney) that universities don't have a compelling interest in diversity.

The case is specifically about Asian American admissions to UNC, but someone saw it as a prime opportunity to take down Black people.

Thomas has so far asked 3 times if there's anything showing any benefit to diversity in education, 3 times been given answers from studies and the opposing counsel's own expert, and 3 times said he doesn't believe that's true.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk