Hemant has been observing this for decades
The most astounding fact of SCOTUS recognition of Christian (or any other) doctrine and dogma is that there is no evidence that supports the argument that god exists. AFAIK, evidence is the prima facie requirement for resolution of litigation.
It is odd that the highest court in the land should completely discard the fundamental evidentiary basis on which “reasonable doubt” is founded.
As I said we have entered an era of Sharia law.
Wait until they start enforcing it!!
The less I say about this current radical Supreme Court of billionaires puppets and christofascists, the better. I’ll let other do the info sharing,
December 3, 2021
A radicalized Supreme Court majority is changing the nation. Congress has options to deal with such circumstances; what it needs is political will.
July 1, 2022, By Steve Benen
On the bright side, We The People are still part of the equation,
BY KATIE BERNARD AND LISA GUTIERREZ
UPDATED AUGUST 03, 2022 12:57 PM
The right to an abortion will remain in the Kansas Constitution.
In the first ballot test of abortion rights in a post-Roe America, Kansas voters turned out in historic numbers to overwhelmingly reject a constitutional amendment that would have opened the door for state lawmakers to further restrict or ban abortions across the state. The Associated Press called the race at 9:40 p.m.
The vote “no” campaign led 59% to 41% after all precincts in the state had reported.
Perhaps its time for a few additional “amendments” to the Constitution that reflect 235 years of cultural modernization.
Let’s remove the argument that when something is not specifically codified in the Constitution, the authority automatically defaults back to the States or local customs, regardless of what the majority of the population holds a priori.
The notion that a US citizen can be held legal in one state and criminal in another state is ludicrous. Where does "equal rights " enter these conflicting legal arguments?
If qualified individuals have a right to vote, why is it that their representative in the Senate can be denied to vote on a Bill that has passed by Congressional vote.
How is it that McConnell can say we will not bring this Bill up for a vote .
Does the Filibuster supercede the Constitution?
After being blocked by the Republican minority five times in the last seven months, Senate Democrats are poised to bring up the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act for debate. In a rare op-ed published in USA Today, former President Obama has come out in support of the bill, urging Senators of both parties to “protect our most basic tool of self-government, which is the right to vote.”
The John Lewis Freedom to Vote act has broad bi-partisan support by 70% of Americans. Key provisions include:
- Making Election Day a federal holiday so working Americans can more easily vote
- Creating a nationwide voter ID requirement
- Requiring 15 days of early voting and vote-by-mail to give voters more options and reduce lines at voting locations
- Ensuring every ballot has a paper trail, and every voter can track their mail-in-ballot
- Promoting and funding strong, state-run audits to protect democracy and election integrity
- Allowing same-day voter registration for American citizens with proper identification and making it a felony to lie about your identity
> President Obama noted that the bill has enough votes to pass the Senate, but Republicans will not even allow it to come up for a debate, let alone a vote. Instead they are using an altered version of the filibuster to keep the Freedom to Vote act from the Senate floor.
> “The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. Historically, the parliamentary tactic was used sparingly – most notably by Southern senators to block civil rights legislation and prop up Jim Crow. In recent years, the filibuster became a routine way for the Senate minority to to block important progress on issues supported by the majority of voters. But we can’t allow it to be used to block efforts to protect our democracy,” Obama wrote.
But let’s be honest. It’s a complete fiction that the SCOTUS was anything other than a political body from the start. It makes me cringe when these so called “supreme” court justices act as if they’re somehow neutral. Please. And that goes for the con and lib ones both. And really the entire justice system. Why is it that McConnell working for years to pack the federal level of judges is even a thing? No, the only solution is to have judges at every level compete for their jobs. And the supreme court justices should be the best of the best by virtue of their years of education, possibly testing, yes testing, and a documented history of neutrality. Short of that, it’s just who knows who, who’s gamed the system, etc. on both sides lib and con.