Fucking hell, this is dangerous.
2 Likes
Democratic Rep Deutch:
3 Likes
5 Likes
I don’t like systemic disenfranchisement as a concept because it created a bigger umbrella to include middle and upper class apathy when it really didn’t earn being there. 35% of white people didn’t vote, and that was not because of targeted disenfranchisement - meanwhile the margin Trump won on is in the drop in Black and Hispanic voting which is absolutely policy.
1 Like
3 Likes
There goes most of the Civil Rights legislation in the country.
Happy #Pride Month.
4 Likes
They missed including American evangelist Christians as being one of the cornerstones of the alt-right. If you even go into any of the online Trump communities you will immediately see fundamentalist Christianity being a cornerstone.
EDIT
And they keep literally lists of people, not just mental ones. Pastebin is a hell of a drug.
3 Likes
4 Likes
I mean, that’s why I don’t like white whining mixed into disenfranchisement talks in a nutshell. Even if Bernie had won the nomination, they would have had the same reaction when Trump won or when Bernie didn’t change the fact that congress is broken and united against him. In the end, the system will take a generation to change and currently a third of the country is going whole-hog on the reactionary thing.
1 Like
They didn’t include the most important detail: was he wearing blue or gray?
2 Likes
That’s the standard, yes. The ACLU statement outlines why it’s problematic.
This is the target:
3 Likes
I know, they also don’t actually provide what the broad implications are. That sheet basically says being against the Israeli military is a unique opinion that is being unfairly put on Israel as if the protesters are all for the US’s military interventions.
2 Likes
At least it’s a super narrow ruling that doesn’t make sense. They refused to actually say Masterpiece Cakeshop was in their legal right and kicked it up the road for the next time.
2 Likes
Yeah, the ruling seems to be “the CCRC said mean things about Phillips’s religion (and about religious beliefs as a justification for people’s actions in general), which taints the ruling because it implies that they ruled maliciously against Phillips because of his religion, rather than ruling against his case based on the law and the facts while keeping a neutral opinion on the religious beliefs in question.”
As precedents go, that one seems pretty narrow.
The concurrences are, of course, all over the place. But the actual ruling, and the precedent set, is just “Rule on the law, and keep your opinions on other people’s religious beliefs to yourself.”
2 Likes
3 Likes
2 Likes
Okay. Everyone talking about the Enlightenment on Twitter, apparently, is doing team sports and not talking about anything real.
2 Likes
This is an apt description of how rich authoritarians order the lives of people around them.
1 Like
I find SCOTUSblog does consistently good analysis on Supreme Court decisions; here’s their analysis of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case:
1 Like