I would be disappointed but not surprised.
Ranvier
joined 2 years ago
Apparently these judges can't read:
Even by their own facist supreme court, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves discrimination on the basis of sex (ie, if someone assigned woman at birth can wear a dress but someone assigned man at birth can't, if an assigned woman can kiss a man but an assigned man can't, these are both discrimination on the basis of sex). So any law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex will logically have to apply to gender indentity and sexual orientation as well. While the ruling was about title vii, there's no reason the same logic wouldn't apply to title ix as well. Title ix can also protect sexual orientation and gender, because there's no way to discrimate on that basis without discriminating on the basis of sex at the same time.
It's totally ridiculous to try and say otherwise. Like take a cis woman being fired from her job because her boss hates women: "No I didn't discriminate against this person because they were assigned woman at birth, I did so because they identify as a woman." "oh well that's alright then I guess"/s
Opponents who try to seperate sex from sexual orientation and gender indentity definitions when this is logically impossible, will essentially neuter the power the law has to help anyone, whether cis or trans, straight or gay, from discrimination. But that could be the object of some of their intentions as well I suppose.
Let's hope the supreme court keeps the same reasoning as their previous ruling when this is inevitably appealed up.
“The fact is, I did nothing wrong,” Bryant said in a statement in May 2023. “I wasn’t aware of the wrongdoings of others."
I had no part in this! I was just an incompetent governor and supervisor! How dare you!
And Wolfe said it’s not clear more money is getting to Mississippi’s poorest. According to state figures, as of June, 1,423 families and 2,522 individuals are receiving federal welfare grants administered by Mississippi, a state where 548,000 people live in poverty.
Where is the money being embezzled to now?
That is an impressive amount of LPS (lies per sentence), even by Trump standards. Some of them have layers, like a nesting doll of lies where each lie has even more lies inside when examined closely.
Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the nation at the state government level. Even though democrats got more votes, Republicans ended up with a super majority in one house and large majority in another. This is why you see the statewide elections like governor and attorney general, and the state legislature makeup, differing so much. They can't gerrymander a state wide vote.
He probably can't himself, but he could order a member of the military to do so (military order, absolute immunity). Or do it himself and then immediately pardon himself (pardon power, absolute immunity). So yeah not really even a parody.
Okay, I was linking polling about actual policies that were passed and implemented though, and those were popular with people.
That's what this articles is about, but policies passed during the Biden admin have also been popular, though according to these sources some not well advertised enough.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-poll-support/index.html
https://apnews.com/article/poll-ukraine-aid-congress-b772c9736b92c0fbba477938b047da2f
I tried but it's harder to find polling on very specific executive department actions and regulations though, like the SAVE student loan repayment plan changes for example. So harder to say on those.
Military tribunals? Sounds like some of his article 2 powers with absolute immunity now, their use cannot be questioned. Go to town Trump, say the conservatives on the supreme court.
The majority are the ones who said that any use of constitutional presidential powers creates absolute immunity. All the dissenters are doing is pointing out the obvious implications and saying why the majority is wrong to create that immunity more eloquently than I can. You are the one who is confused. Or more likely, just arguing in bad faith. But just in case,
It's on the very first page of the majority ruling, here you go:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
Seperately from the absolute immunity, any powers not delegated in the constitution (official acts they call it), have presumptive immunity. Uses of specifically delegated constitutional powers, like the military, have absolute immunity. If its an ability delegated to him in the constitution, the majority ruling says that cannot be questioned. They say neither by themselves or congressional laws. Only use of powers not delegated in the constitution can the court even begin to question if it was an "official act."
The majority says something along the lines of "oh this is just a little immunity we didn't give turmp everything he asked for." I have no idea why they can write that with a straight face. Besides the fact that giving any criminal immunity to the president is totally antithetical to the founding principles of our country, they in fact have given him everything he asked for. Trump himself was arguing if he was impeached for something then he should be able to be criminally liable still. But now thanks to the supreme court conservative justices, for the vast majority of the scariest things a president can do, like the command the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of officials, he couldn't be held criminally liable even if he was impeached. It was more than Trump asked for. They may have even managed to torpedo both of his state criminal cases.
The Supreme Court majority is just so worried that poor president's will get harassed by prosecutors afterwards? Good! He should be afraid of breaking the law, just like everyone else. And if that can be proven in a court of law, he should go to jail, just like everyone else. The supreme court has now elevated the president above the rule of law and abdicated the responsibilities of the judiciary branch.
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
https://www.newsweek.com/gretchen-whither-chances-beating-trump-poll-1919211
That's my concern too. Harris was closest at about the same percent as Biden. Though it did increase the amount of people who would say they're not sure when compared to the Biden Trump race. It's possible a new candidate might have some wiggle room to convince more swing voters. So I think there's an argument to be made that some of the potential replacements have a higher ceiling than Biden does that they might get to even if they start at a lower polling basis. I would feel a lot better about a switch if someone was actually polling better than Biden already though.
https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/358559/biden-harris-whitmer-newsom-shapiro-buttigieg-alternative-nomination-candidate-2024
These ones were earlier from February 2024, and though it was only in a single poll, the only person who recorded a higher percent than Biden in a poll was fucking Joe Manchin, ugh.