#anti scalia

[teenwolf-confessions]

[jessmalia]

Something keeps me holding on to nothing...

[crisnyra]

Scalia shippers 🤝 Sterek shippers. Hating Stydia mostly for the creepy crush and kiss during a panic attack

[callieluna16]

Chapters: 2/? Fandom: Teen Wolf (TV) Rating: Mature Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, Rape/Non-Con Relationships: Derek Hale/Stiles Stilinski, Vernon Boyd/Erica Reyes, Cora Hale/Lydia Martin, Allison Argent/Isaac Lahey, Liam Dunbar/Brett Talbot, Scott McCall/Malia Tate, Malia Tate/Kira Yukimura, Chris Argent/Melissa McCall, Peter Hale/Original Female Character(s), Original Female Character(s)/Original Female Character(s), Ethan Steiner/Jackson Whittemore Characters: Derek Hale, Stiles Stilinski, Vernon Boyd, Jackson Whittemore, Liam Dunbar, Scott McCall (Teen Wolf), Malia Tate, Kira Yukimura, Chris Argent, Scylla, Satomi Ito (Teen Wolf), Eli Hale-Stilinski - Character, Laura Hale-Stilinski, Claudia Hale-Stilinski, Leila Boyd-Reyes, Miguel Argent-Lahey, Erica Argent-Lahey, Talia Hale-Martin, Daniel Hale-Martin, Peter McCall-Tate, Scott McCall-Tate, Alan Deaton, Sheriff Stilinski, Ethan Steiner Additional Tags: Stiles Stilinski is Pushed Out of Scott McCall's Pack, anti-scott mccall, Girl Penis, Past Rape/Non-con, Married Characters, Future Fic, future kids, Kid Fic, Spark Stiles Stilinski, Pack Alpha Derek Hale, Emissary Stiles Stilinski, Female Stiles Stilinski, Always Female Stiles Stilinski, Allison Argent Lives, Scott McCall is True Asshole, Untrustworthy Alan Deaton, Bisexual Stiles Stilinski, Bisexual Lydia Martin, Bisexual Kira Yukimura, Bisexual Malia Tate, trigger warning: suicide attempt, Suicide Attempt, Bad Friend Scott McCall (Teen Wolf), gip Summary:

After the events of the Nogitsune Scott decided that it was best if Stiles was out of the pack. He couldn’t trust her anymore, especially after she killed Allison.

Or did she?

It’s 16 years later and the rest of the Hale Pack go back home to Beacon Hills to figure out why the Sheriff got shot and why said True Alpha didn’t protect him.

Some truths about what happened between the True Asshole, Stiles and Theo.

There will be some flashbacks to this so we get the whole story of what happened and how some relationships came to be!

[msginnymalfoy]

SCOTT MCCALL AND HIS GIRLFRIENDS

I Hate Scallison, because they had this great great love in first two seasons then allison fell in lust with scott's friend and started dating him(i hate allison's character for that idc how or why it was written)

I Loved Scira, not a big fan but they were cute. i didn't connect much to them. maybe because Jeff didn't gave them much story/screentime. even kira's kitsune control problems were written very poorly like they just wanted to end her story? i won't say much about it because my submission box is already pouring with asshole anon. but all i can say is- it was a mess. posey and arden carried that ship with whatever was given to them. in my opinion.

At last, I FUCKING LOVE SCALIA, they are so perfect for each other. Malia's character was treated poorly when it came to stalia (sorry but why don't we talk about this more?) her whole character and it's development gets sidelined or reduced to being stiles girlfriend in s3-s5. MALIA IS AN AWESOME CHARACTER. but in 6B she finally found herself. AND then found love and a partner in scott. and same for scott. He is the alpha. he knows his role and his place in the world. But finds the support he needs in Malia. They can both fight the world. But they can conquer it when they are together. picking the other when one falls down, they are each other's strength and pillar when they need support. they are AWESOME.

Now in the movie,

i know it's been YEARS after 6B. But Bringing scallison back together won't make any sense after how they were in season 3. it will be cute, "Because i know we are gonna be together" "there is no such thing as fate" closure. but it will be weird for me to accept them together again. Especially because i was too invested in how scott story turned out through every season. scira was great but like i said i wasn't a big fan. not like scalia. scalia ending up together was perfect. the show ending with scalia was perfect.

IF they are not together for the sake of bringing back a dead ship (yes dead ship because it died long before allison did), it will be so wrong for malia to go through that again- watching her ex with someone else. right infront of her. and will be hella weird to watch scott and malia in the same room. and very sad. VERY VERY VERY SAD.

And even if we don't think about scalia, scallison back again together will make no sense whatsoever.

Thank you for listening my rant.

[vicontheinternet]

Scalia should’ve taken custody of Eli not scallison. Like Derek liked scott to do degree and Derek’s own beta choose scott over Derek. But mostly In my head Derek is alive and well with breaden

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

local coffee shop: we have some limited-time novelty drinks!

me: such as?

local coffee shop: does a ginger white chocolate mocha sound up your alley?

me: RIGHT up my alley! what’s it called?

local coffee shop: the Ruth Bader Gingersberg :)

me: what else do you have

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Chris Williams

New Yorkers are known for having a temper. Some blame it on the traffic and dirty water hog dogs. Personally? I blame it on the cost of living. If you compare the value of $20 in 1970 New York to $20 in the Big Apple now, the cost of living has gone up a whopping 677.46%. A big part of that increase has been housing. Back in 2012, a man ran an entire campaign premised on the rent being too damned high. But, man, if you thought New Yorkers were pissed about rent prices back then… wait until they really can’t afford rent.

Before we even get to the obvious ethical issues involved with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito sitting on this case despite receiving lavish gifts from landowners with a vested interest in this matter, it is worth taking a second to reflect on the Supreme Court’s drift from just a decade ago.

It would still be newsworthy if the Court decides to even hear the case. A little over a decade ago, James Harmon tried to bring a very similar case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the New York’s rent stabilization law constituted a taking. The Court ultimately decided against hearing Harmon’s case. With that in mind, read an assessment given based on that case a decade ago in The Tenant:

“If the Supreme Court chooses to consider the Harmons’ lawsuit, it would mean that four Justices—presumably Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—believe there is a valid argument for a radical expansion of property rights, that destroying legal protections for tenants is as much an idea whose time has come as abolishing racial segregation was in 1954.”

It can be startling to see how quickly opinions on the judiciary can change. In framing the above quote, the author brought up the importance of precedent, citing cases like Roe, Brown, and Lawrence v. Texas. The thinking at the time was that even if the Court wasn’t the biggest fan of a given outcome, it’d respect the decisions of the jurists before them. Clearly written before Dobbs and Sackett, but the rest ages pretty well.

Now we’ve subbed Gorsuch into that foursome that couldn’t come together… and added Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The YOLO Court era has arrived. Because who’s to stop them?

If the Court gets rid of rent control, it is hard to understate the significance it would have on the lives of New Yorkers. From Lever News:

“Samuel Stein, a housing policy analyst at the Community Service Society, an anti-poverty organization in New York, said if the Supreme Court were to overturn the rent stabilization law, ‘It’s the end of New York City.’

‘Rents would go up significantly around the city,’ he continued. ‘There will be a tremendous amount of displacement. You will have a lot of people leaving New York City, you will have a lot of homelessness, you’ll have a lot of overcrowding.’”

There was a point in time you could rely on the Court to respect stare decisis. Dobbs and Bruen show that’s no longer the case. If ever a Court was willing to get rid of the 50+ years of rent control, it would be the Roberts court.

We should find out if they will hear the case by the end of September.

[eretzyisrael]

by Stacey Matthews

Teaching about the Holocaust should be a non-negotiable thing in the public education system, not just because it’s important to learn history for history’s sake, but also because students need to learn from the past, which hopefully will ensure the horrible parts of it never happen again.

While Holocaust history is indeed taught in the Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) system, Cooper Middle School has given parents of students the option to opt them out of attending a presentation to be made by a Holocaust survivor on Monday, March 18th on grounds that “We understand that all students have different experiences.”

Adele Scalia, a former attorney who is the wife of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, Christopher, posted on Twitter Thursday about an email she received from their son’s school regarding the upcoming presentation:

Fairfax County Public School System Provides ‘Opt-Out’ Option for Students on Holocaust Presentation

“A Holocaust survivor is coming to speak to my son’s 7th grade History class on Monday. Wonderful. What’s less than wonderful, though, is the opt-out for this lesson because ‘We understand that all students have different experiences.'”

Posted by Stacey Matthews Saturday, March 16, 2024 at 06:00pm 33 Comments

Facebook

Twitter

Telegram

LinkedIn

WhatsApp

Reddit

Email

Teaching about the Holocaust should be a non-negotiable thing in the public education system, not just because it’s important to learn history for history’s sake, but also because students need to learn from the past, which hopefully will ensure the horrible parts of it never happen again.

While Holocaust history is indeed taught in the Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) system, Cooper Middle School has given parents of students the option to opt them out of attending a presentation to be made by a Holocaust survivor on Monday, March 18th on grounds that “We understand that all students have different experiences.”

Adele Scalia, a former attorney who is the wife of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, Christopher, posted on Twitter Thursday about an email she received from their son’s school regarding the upcoming presentation:

Incredibly, when contacted for comment, a spokesperson for the FCPS issued the following statement claiming it was actually done so Jewish students who might have felt uncomfortable sitting through the presentation didn’t have to:

“Some Jewish students have previously expressed discomfort while engaging in dialogue around this visit. For that reason, school leadership makes every effort to partner with families of these students, who are 12 and 13 years old, to keep them informed,” the statement read. “This opt-out allows the family the opportunity to make the best informed decision on behalf of their student.”

That is, however, hard to believe considering not only Fairfax County’s notorious woke history but also because it has become a “hotbed of Muslim extremism” according to The Daily Wire:

Fairfax County contains a hotbed of Muslim extremism. A mosque there, attended by several 9/11 hijackers as well as the Fort Hood terrorist, was presided over by the father of Abrar Omeish, who until this year was a member of the Fairfax County school board. Omeish voted against an FCPS resolution offering a moment of silence for victims of 9/11 and another for victims of October’s Hamas attacks on Israel, said the decisive World War II victor at Iwo Jima was “unfortunate,” and gave a graduation speech encouraging students to “remember your jihad” and reject capitalism. Jennifer Katz, a founding member of United Against Anti-Semitism and a Jewish parent of two FCPS students, told The Daily Wire that hearing from a Holocaust survivor is supposed to be emotionally difficult, and is part of gaining a full understanding of the tragedy.

[schraubd]

The Intolerance of Being Unhappy When Extremists Succeed

There's an emergent line I'm seeing from the nationalist-conservative right, complaining about how, as their practical power increases, they and their ideas are no longer looked upon with the same degree of affability as when they were fringe activists chirping at the margins. Adam Mortara put it as follows after he and Jonathan Mitchell, architect of Texas' SB8 and some of the most radical anti-abortion pushes in the country, received an (allegedly) chilly reception by a liberal former mentor.*

“It was hurtful . . . and eye-opening,” Mortara said. “You’re fine when you’re just a yappy little dog that can’t bite. But, if you grow up to be a big dog that can actually do stuff, then you’re probably going to be put down.”

Justice Alito said something similar in his whine-terview in the Wall Street Journal last week -- he alleged that he's really no different than Antonin Scalia, but Scalia was tolerated by liberal elites because he was mostly in dissent. Now that Justice Alito commands a majority, things hit different.

"When you're in dissent," Justice Alito observes, "well, his ideas were amusing and interesting. He spoke at a lot of law schools and he was honored at law schools, but he wasn't a threat, because those views were not prevailing on issues that really hit home."

This line is presented as some sort of gotcha to the liberals. "Oh, you tolerated us when our ideas were basically just fascinating thought experiments, but now that we're winning it's dangerous." To which I say: yes! That's how it works! 

The whole point of liberal free speech commitments is that there is a sizeable gap between "views one is willing to consider and debate" and "views which it would be good, or even acceptable, to prevail in political life." We don't limit our consideration only to those positions which we're willing to endorse on-the-merits; which means that there is no conflict between engaging in such consideration in the abstract and being appalled when certain views actually start winning the day in "real" politics. The "gotcha" completely misunderstands the point of what liberal tolerance in the context of an abstract intellectual discussion is supposed to signify, or commit to.

For example, it is entirely plausible that one might assign, in a political theory class, works by Lenin, and consider/debate them in the classroom context. That's perfectly appropriate. But if the Leninists actually start seizing political power and instituting the purges, that would be bad! And if they said, "Oh, it was fine to debate our ideas in the classroom, but now that we're actually in charge and establishing gulags you have a problem with it," well, yeah, I do! Clearly! And I can think the same thing of compulsory pregnancy and forced childbirth. As a professor, it is important to debate these questions. But the actual political reality of it is catastrophic, and it's fine to say so.

It is not a failure of liberal tolerance to be unhappy when illiberal authoritarianism is on the march. A willingness to debate and consider these views as abstract intellectual exercises does not make said unhappiness hypocrisy. This isn't that complicated.

* Full disclosure: the mentor in question was David Strauss, who was my mentor in law school as well. I also got to know Mitchell when I was a law student, and can attest that he is a personally very pleasant person to interact with in addition to possessing a formidable intellect. Any one who knows Professor Strauss is well aware of his commitment to nurturing and supporting law students from a range of different ideological backgrounds, and so I have no doubt he is genuine in feeling hurt that Mitchell has used his prodigious legal talents in service of dangerous, even lawless, public initiatives.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/OWq6ye8

[teenwolf-confessions]

[jessmalia]

Do you ship scalia or is it just something that you don’t mind seeing?

I ship scalia in a vacuum. I think it's a sweet dynamic with a lot of potential. Shelley and Tyler do have a lot of chemistry, so I can see why the writers wanted to explore that pairing. They have a very similar awkwardness/cluelessness that feeds into each other well (I think the same can be said about stira, which is a ship I like in a similar way, actually even more because of the tricksters/kitsune angle in their dynamic, and I also think there's some sciles meta in there about how they both got girlfriends that are so similar to the other lol) and I'm happy with how they really utilised that during their scenes in 6B. I've only seen the season once, so I can't even recall what the scene was about, but I remember the scene that sold them the most to me as a couple was that Malia face palm one lol. Where Malia is trying to communicate something but they're both just totally clueless.

This one:

The problem is the circumstances of when this pairing was explored. The messy way stalia broke up, the unfair way Malia's feelings about st/ydia was completely disregarded. Granted, this makes a part of me go "Stiles unfairly dumped you and got with Lydia without asking how you'd feel about it? Fuck yeah you should get with his best friend! Give him a taste of his own medicine! Fair is fair!" but that's more about me being a Malia stan than having to do with any ships lol. When viewing the show as a whole, it's just impossible NOT to compare scalia and stalia, and when you do, scalia so obviously comes in short.

Like, every single argument I can come up with for scalia potentially working better is disproven by what stalia was in canon. Like, "oh maybe Scott could help her with her werecoyote struggles and do it better because as a werewolf he knows what it feels like" but we literally saw Stiles help Malia with that and he did it perfectly! After hammering in for 2 and a half seasons that Stiles is Malia's anchor I can't see anyone buying how Scott could just replace him in that aspect. Also "Scott is so good and anti violence that he could help Malia get over her kill first ask questions never coyote thing in a way Stiles can't because he's very similar to Malia in that regard" doesn't work for me either. We saw throughout their relationship that Stiles and Malia felt the best about their violent tendencies and trust issues with each other because the other one could understand. They could tell each other "You're still a good person" and the other could actually believe it for once. They opened up to each other and told the other aspects of their trauma that they never discussed with anyone else! "But when I came through it, I learned something else... Control is overrated." "I said, 'I wish you were all dead.'"

Then there's the scira of it all too! I'm not gonna go too much into it since I'm mainly a stalia stan lol, but the way Kira was pushed out of the show is honestly so horrible, and the fact that scira was so huge and how Tyler and Arden kept talking about how in love they were AND the fact that the writers said that they didn't actually break up and Scott was gonna wait for her... it's all very frustrating. Add the fact that Shelley is a white woman and Arden isn't and, yeah... it's all very bad.

Plus the way season 6 not only sucked in general, but also how the writing was really bad at actually selling st/ydia and scalia. I really like what @bericas said in the tags of this post: #like on a real level#i just don’t understand what they wrote it like this#like#why would you do this#6a outside of the narrative telling us stydia showed stalia and scydia like crazy#and it’s so weird#if you’re gonna lie to me at least do it well. If they really wanted to make the endgames make sense, they really needed more time to do it. You can’t just decide to completely change your character dynamics for the last season of the show. Don’t know what the writers were on during that decision. 

TLDR: I think they’re a nice ship in theory but they just don’t work in canon. 

[fishmech]

hahaha yes!!! yes!!!

the defense contractor freaks finally got over the afghan war ending!

and justice scalia's freak transphobe daughter lost her attempt to run for albemarle school board on the anti-trans platform handily! go die on a ranch like your dad, meg!

[tanadrin]

Extremely funny to me that the Chevron Defense was invented to pander to anti-environmental regulatory changes imposed by Gorsuch's LITERAL MOM, and now Gorsuch is the bleeding edge of opposition. Real "no principles only objectives" nepo dynasty moment.

do you mean chevron deference?

"no principles objectives only" basically describes the heart of the conservative legal movement, so no big surprises there. it's always interesting to note when conservative justices do twig on some point of actual principle, like scalia and fourth amendment issues or gorsuch and native rights issues, because the interpretive framework they apply to the law suddenly shifts dramatically

[tomorrowusa]

Don't be fooled by phony support for labor from billionaires like Donald Trump.

Contrary to what a few media outlets reported, Trump did NOT speak to striking UAW workers. The owner of a non-union shop invited him to hold what amounted to a campaign rally at his building.

The Media Falls for Trump’s Labor Lies

[O]nce you strip away Trump’s bluster, you see a recognizably Republican creature. His labor lies are proof. The former president wanted people to believe he was speaking to striking auto workers, but the UAW had not invited him and its president, Shawn Fain, had sharply criticized Trump. The press fell for Trump’s lies anyway. [ ... ] Here’s what else we know about Trump and labor. His Labor Secretary, Eugene Scalia, was resolutely anti-union and anti-worker. Scalia rewrote “dozens of rules that were put in place to protect workers” The New Yorker reported, and during his tenure, OSHA “explicitly told employers that none of its COVID-19 recommendations impose new legal obligations.” Under Trump, the National Labor Relations Board reversed some Obama-era regulations that made it easier for workers to organize. Politico itself reported in 2018 that the Trump administration was “rolling back worker safety protections affecting underground mine safety inspections, offshore oil rigs and line speeds in meat processing plants, among others.” On labor, Trump is an orthodox conservative. We know that Trump’s “mixed legacy” with labor is, in fact, clear. He likes to sound like a populist, but he is a proven conman. Yet those facts are relatively absent from mainstream coverage right now. Why are political reporters still making such basic mistakes? Why are they even furnishing his lies? Trump’s claims deserve skepticism, at minimum, like any politician. As long as Republican voters prefer Trump in spite of his anti-worker record, and Republican lawmakers are still anti-union, we can hardly speak of “a long coming convergence between his own party and union members,” as Politico does. [ ... ] As my colleague Eric Levitz recently argued, a paper or news channel can find it difficult to cover Trump “without sounding like a shrill, dull, Democratic propaganda outlet.” Therefore the media “comports itself as an amnesiac, or an abusive household committed to keeping up appearances, losing itself in the old routines, in an effortful approximation of normality until it almost forgets what it doesn’t want to know.” In such circumstances, the press should ask itself if objectivity is even possible, let alone desirable. The truth will not long withstand business as usual.

While pretending to be pro-US labor, Trump merchandise was being made in China during his administration.

Trump flags: Made in China

Trump treats his own workers like shit, he considers them disposable and screws them out of their rightful benefits.

How Trump's Casino Bankruptcies Screwed His Workers out of Millions in Retirement Savings Trump made out like a bandit, but his employees paid the price.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I think you may have answered this kind of question before but right now I do believe when they gut Lawrence v Texas they are going to charge everybody online who does art, fics and whatever gay with sodomy and be put on the sex offender registry unjustifiably and it's making me feel extremely worried that I have to distance myself. But I don't know.

That's why I really hope you respond with a longer response and explaining this and I'm prepared to hear that I am right or wrong or right but over exaggerating problem this is a seriously bothering me

I've literally heard nothing about this, so I did some searching and it seems like no one is advocating for overturning Lawrence v Texas, or even seriously considering that it might get overturned.

You can read a somewhat unbiased summary of the decision here, but basically the only reason anyone might be floating that it might get overturned is because the decision relies on the same "substantive due process" that the current court attacked when overturning Roe v Wade, and because Clarence Thomas was one of the dissenting justices in Lawrence. However, as the last two paragraphs of the linked article state:

Is Lawrence v. Texas In Danger of Being Overturned? After the court's decision in Dobbs and the end of the constitutionally-protected right to abortion, there has been speculation that Lawrence v. Texas may also soon be revisited. As noted above, substantive due process cases continue to be controversial, and many conservative legal advocates question whether the Supreme Court of the United States should have ever started down this path. At least one sitting justice, Clarence Thomas, has flat-out argued that the court should eliminate substantive due process, which would once again allow states to ban same-sex marriage, criminalize homosexual conduct, and outlaw birth control. However, others, such as Justice Samuel Alito, have attempted to distinguish abortion from other substantive due process rights such as intimate sexual acts and same-sex marriage. It's important to note, however, that Alito made the same legal arguments in ​Dobbs​ that Scalia did in his Lawrence dissent. Put plainly, the only certainty is that a lot of the legal grounds that Lawrence rested on have been shaken by the current court's revocation of a previously constitutionally protected right.

Note first the unsourced "speculation". Again, I could find nothing on Bing about Lawrence being overturned, or any current case that might overturn it, or any push to have it overturned. "Speculation" in this case seems to mean "some people online are acting like the sky is falling again".

Even if Lawrence did, somehow, get overturned again, all it would do is exactly what Dobbs, which overturned Roe, did, and send the issue back to the states. As far as I know, no state currently has any law against gay sex, or sodomy in general, and there are no "trigger laws" that will activate if Lawrence gets overturned like there were in several states with regards to abortion and Roe. There is no legal interest in anti-sodomy laws. Would some deep red states try to pass them if Lawrence got overturned? Maybe. But much like banning gay marriage, there is no real push to do so. There's no political will to do either of those things, not from politicians and certainly not from voters. You can never predict what a government will do with 100% certainty, but I think it's safe to say none of us are going to see sodomy made illegal in our lifetimes. What I might expect, maybe, is to see a bunch of anti-sodomy in public laws passed, since sexual activity in public is a hot issue right now. But that's already illegal, and would only be symbolic to show voters that the state legislatures are serious about cracking down on public indecency. But again, that's just speculation on my part.

As for fan art and fics, they would never be subject to prosecution if Lawrence gets overturned. Art and real life acts are not governed by the same laws. Just remember, murder is illegal, but you can't be arrested for drawing a picture of someone being killed. Rape is illegal, but you can't be arrested for writing a rapefic. The only legal murkiness when it comes to art vs real life is sexual art depicting underage fictional characters. And as far as I can remember from the last time I got into a discussion about that, the only law against fictional underage porn is that you can't import it into the country. And that law has only ever been enforced once or twice. Most notably, against some guy who imported hundreds of thousands of dollars in loli hentai from Japan, and I don't even think he went to jail. So fandom spaces are not going to come under legal attack even if, somehow, Lawrence gets overturned and congress passes a law that makes gay sex illegal across the country. I'd be more worried about the fan artists and fic writers selling their fanart or fanfic, tbh. That is dangerous legal territory, and more and more people seem to be diving into it headfirst.