#no the SERIES of scotus decisions

[angelsaxis]

idk like sex workers trans people indigenous americans and Black radicals (or even just the average Black politically-aware person) have been warning about this wave of white supremacist legislative violence for years. if you can understand that serial killers get away with their deeds by attacking the least popular members of society--the marginalized--before "move up" to targets like white women, then you can understand that for years members of congress have been attacking sex workers, trans people's rights, indigenous people, and Black people in sometimes subtle but other times not subtle ways. but because sex workers, native americans, Black people, and trans people are so unpopular--and god forbid if anyone is all of these at once--many many many white liberals especially, regardless of their other social classes, were fine with ignoring the signs that crept up on them. they want order more than they want justice. i won't lie and act like there wasn't a time where I thought things would stay permanently good after 2015's obergefell ruling, but me being 15 and hopeful is leagues away from liberals now acting shocked that the loaded gun aimed at their head was actually fired.

[rabid-transcendentalist]

On the subject of our rapidly deteriorating democracy I'd like to issue a gentle reminder that Animal Farm was meant to be a cautionary tale and not a guide book.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

Trump and his sycophants have destroyed the Republican Party. They are no longer conservatives either fiscally or on foreign policy. They are a party of chaos beholden to the right-wing culture warrior oligarchs. They are the derogatory agents of those oligarchs and the corporations owned by them. They make decisions based on the whim of a deranged madman.

They have gone from being closet racists/bigots to being full blown Nazis that call for the extermination of their culture war scapegoats they call “vermin” (marginalized people/political rivals). They take this term directly from Hitler who they openly embrace in speech and writing. They no longer care about tax cuts for all but just for the 1% and corporations. They want endless wars to profit from and to distract and rally their deplorable base. They no longer want small, limited government but opt for a massive government that intrudes into its citizens private lives and tramples their freedoms.

The party of law and order is now a party of criminals, sex offenders, grifters, traitors, and murderous street thugs. They are proud of this and fund raise and merchandise from their lawlessness. They have bought control of what is now an illegitimate SCOTUS which never allows them to be held accountable.

They use the KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, armed right-wing militias, Neo-Confederates, and white supremacists to persecute their opponents and victims in the streets and inside the Capitol itself. They tell us to “get over it” when mindless gun violence decimates our families in every public venue from churches, to schools, to 4th of July celebrations, movie theaters, shopping malls, and even a Super Bowl parade.

The police, courts, and legislatures are infested with their white nationalist/supremacists and Christo-fascists. They openly take money from Russia and others to influence our foreign policy and economic policy. Money from Russia is funneled into the NRA and Congress to allow a massive proliferation of gun violence on our streets that destabilizes our society.

They claim to be the party of the military but they degrade and insult our troops and cast our veterans into the streets. They abandon our allies and our treaty obligations at the behest of foreign dictators that bribe them.

They bust our unions and pass laws to weaken or prevent organized labor. They are forcing society to become wage slaves with no security, insurance, or pensions. They force our workers into the “gig economy” where everyone works incredible hours 7 days a week at multiple jobs and still are left unable to afford rent or mortgages. Nearly the entire population is one or two paychecks away from being homeless.

Decades of trickle down economics has seen our tax dollars poured into the accounts of billionaires, millionaires, and corporations with not a penny trickling down to the working class. The middle class has been practically wiped out by cruel Republican legislation written by political think tanks established and funded by oligarchs. The only thing these pseudo-conservatives conserve is their own wealth.

This is late stage capitalism run amok. The economy has been drained and now the oligarchs and corporations are plundering the government. They have taken advantage of decades of right-wing propaganda proliferated by Fox News, conservatives talk radio, and internet podcasts that have brain washed the rural areas into blaming the Democrats that are trying help them while convincing them to vote for the Republicans who have impoverished them. The French Revolution in reverse.

They see the Orange Dictator as their last best chance to completely take over the government and create a kleptocracy that pulls the strings behind an autocracy that pretends to be a republic.

The chaos of the Republican puppets is to distract everyone from the takeover by the oligarchs, corporations, and deep pocketed foreign adversaries.

[winestainedpoetry]

Zeus, upholder of just laws,

Hear my prayer.

Dionysos, patron of the queer,

Hear my cry;

Protect us from those who

Carry hate in their hearts.

When the laws of man

Violate simple xenia and kinship

Give us strength.

Help us tear through the hate

Like lightning.

Guide us to justice and healing.

Protect us as we struggle.

Gods be with us, for we need

Your safety and strength

Now more than ever.

Today's SCOTUS decision on 303 v. Elenis is an extremely upsetting one. It's the latest attack on our community in a series of hateful laws and decisions. It sets us back by decades and essentially makes it possible to discriminate against members of the LGBTQIA community if our existence goes against one's "sincerely held beliefs." Stay strong, call your reps, protest, and stick together as a community. We'll make it through this.

[decolonize-the-left]

"When the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to block the injunction, it argued that its attempts to influence content moderation were persuasion, not coercion. Government officials were "urging platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation, highlighting the risk of disinformation from foreign actors, and responding to the platforms' inquiries about matters of public health," the Biden administration said.

[...]"Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing," Alito's dissent said. A stay requires the government to show that there is "a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay," Alito wrote, arguing that the Biden administration did not clear that bar.

"Instead of providing any concrete proof that 'harm is imminent,' the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled. But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government 'may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,' not concrete proof," Alito wrote.

TLDR:

Biden just gave sites like Facebook and TikTok an order to police their content for "misinformation."

....with him supporting Israel and the globe internationally supporting Palestine online I wonder why he chose to do that.

Keep organizing.

And if you see a drop in content over the next few days just know its state sponsored censorship by a war criminal in blue.

[todaysdocument]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. 

In U.S. v Windsor, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples. 

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files

Transcription: 

[Stamped: " FILE COPY "]

(Bench Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2012            1  [Handwritten and circled " 1"  in upper right-hand corner]

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307.  Argued March 27, 2013---Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in

2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.

Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-

ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act---a

law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and

the whole realm of federal regulations-to define "marriage" and

"spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in

estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service

denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-

olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth

Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified

the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department

of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re-

sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of

Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's

constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On

the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-

constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax

with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has

not complied with the judgment.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos-

ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District

Court, but the Executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali-

[page 2]

2                  UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies

introduces a complication. Given the Government's concession, ami-

cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case

should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu-

ment elides the distinction between Article Ill's jurisdictional re-

quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are "es-

sentially matters of judicial self-governance." Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to

support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re-

fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is "a real and immediate econom-

ic injury," Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S.

587, 599, even if the Executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind-

sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay

thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction.

Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919.

Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be "con-

crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon

which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti-

tutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204. Unlike Article

III requirements---which must be satisfied by the parties before judi-

cial consideration is appropriate---prudential factors that counsel

against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considera-

tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc-

tance to exert judicial power." Warth, supra, at 500-501. One such

consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the

issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de-

fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. See Chadha,

supra, at 940. Here, BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for

§3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise

might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which

the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is

appropriate for the Executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat-

utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment

or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense

ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question,

which is of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to

hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5-13.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of

persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13--26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of mar-

riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the

separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate

the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but

DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U.S._ (2013)           3

Syllabus

the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its

operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New

York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the

validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and

traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area

that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the

States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state

responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to

the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband

and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,"

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws

may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each

State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State's decision

to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a

dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government

uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose---to impose re-

strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury

and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty

protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as

alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the

same class the State seeks to protect. New York's actions were a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the

community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in-

stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning

of equality. Pp. 13--20.

(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,

DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap-

plicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of

equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de-

sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate

treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting

state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of

the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of

their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose

and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state

law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a

disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter

into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority

[page 3]

4           UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that

interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred

by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than

an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's

arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.

DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates

New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality

into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of

state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples

married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights

and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes

within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-

ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of

federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic

personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and

protect. Pp. 20-26.

699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a

dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to

Parts II and III.

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U. S. _ (2013)          1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,

D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-307

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN

WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2013]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married

in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith

Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New

York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire

estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax

exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from

doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Mar-

riage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the

definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal stat-

utes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge

the constitutionality of this provision. The United States

District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this

portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the

United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted

certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's

favor.

I

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the

concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74

[ultranos]

Hello,

You mention some podcast you love once in a while and I gotta tell you they are usually very good recs and have made me discover some great ones. Do you have a rec list somewhere, or a few podcasts you'd like to give a shoutout to ?

Thanks a lot !

Sure! I don't have a rec list, but I'll make one now here of what's in my general rotation (or was, if it's a limited series):

Ongoing

Behind the Bastards (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/) A podcast about the worst people in all of history, hosted by Robert Evans (former war correspondent and Cracked.com writer). My current binge-listen, it's highly engaging on some of the most difficult to process subject matter there is, that being human atrocities and the people who commit them. It's a deep dive into the history and background of these people that in every case that reminds us that all too often "history's greatest monsters"...are just people. (As a note, Evans acknowledges fucked-up things as fucked up, but he doesn't pretend they didn't occur)

This Podcast Will Kill You (https://thispodcastwillkillyou.com/) A podcast about diseases and epidemiology, as well as other medical mysteries. Each episode will go over the biology of a disease or condition, the history of it, and the current state of where we stand with it in the world. Also, each episode comes with an original cocktail and mocktail recipe.

Criminal (https://thisiscriminal.com/) The only true crime podcast I listen to, hosted by Phoebe Judge, the woman with the most soothing podcast voice ever. It's a podcast about crime, but unlike a lot of true crime podcasts, it's just as likely to be a story about the victim or the people caught in the middle as it is the actual perpetrator.

5-4 (https://www.fivefourpod.com/) "A podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks." Three lawyers dissect and analyze SCOTUS cases, and not just present ones, that illustrate just how reactionary and adversarial the Court has been throughout almost all it's history.

Noble Blood (https://www.grimandmild.com/nobleblood) Host Dana Schwartz takes you on a trip each episode into the lives, bad decisions, and usually very bloody ends of many of history's royals and nobility.

You're Wrong About (https://yourewrongabout.com/) Events, people, and phenomenon from the semi-recent past that have been miscast in the public understanding. From McDonalds Hot Coffee to Princess Diana to Sinead O'Connor. Also you'll probably learn more about the Satanic Panic than you ever thought about before.

If Books Could Kill (https://www.ifbookspod.com/) Does the idea of "two hosts ripping into really terrible nonfiction bestsellers that have causes some really harmful ideas to spread" sound entertaining? Because that's pretty much what this is. You're not going to look at airport books the same way again.

Queer as Fact (https://www.queerasfact.com/) Four Australian historians explore queer historical topics and figures from all over the world and from different time periods. The research is often damn good, especially considering how thin on the ground sources can be, and they take pains to not limit themselves to the usual Eurocentric view of history.

99% Invisible (https://99percentinvisible.org/) Probably the longest-running podcast in my rotation, host Roman Mars and crew say it's a podcast about design. It's probably more accurate to say it's about the design and impact of the things we don't usually see or think about, the little things we take for granted that have been designed and developed and have had a profound impact on people's lives, in both the hyperlocal and global sense.

Limited Series

Ars Paradoxica (https://arsparadoxica.com/) Sci-fi audio serial drama. Time-travel, the Cold War, secret agencies, and human choices.

The Big Dig (https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig) 9-ep series produced by GBH hosted by Ian Coss about how Boston's Big Dig happened. It's also about American infrastructure and politics, and how the local sometimes is the national.

[elipheleh]

Learning about things referenced in Red, White & Royal Blue

Over the last 20 days I’ve been sharing a series where we learn about things referenced in Red White & Royal Blue. I shared a post similar to this at the start, with my intended post list, updating the links as I posted them. Now I have come to a stopping point - at least for now, I do have some other ideas but i want to let the film release happen first - I wanted to share the complete list, with all the posts linked. They are listed in order of posting, not in order of appearance in the book.

———

Waterloo Vase

Alex engaging with queer history (main post) & individual links - Stonewall, SCOTUS decision 2015, Walt Whitman, Laws of Illinois 1961, The White Night Riots, Paris is Burning, David Wojnarowicz photo

Music (main post)

Thisbe & Pyramus

The V&A Visit (main post) - individual links: Statues, James I & George Villiers, Santa Chiara (incl proverb & David and Jonathan)

Section 28 & Henry

———

It would be great if you could reblog this to share it more widely! I am really pleased with the feedback i’ve received from it & so happy that it’s helping others learn about things just as it helped me. This was always an attempt to learn together, and it warms my heart to see people’s tags that prove we have been doing so. If you do have any ideas that we might want to cover in the future, let me know! I love learning and I love sharing my new knowledge with others.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Fritze at CNN, via The Advocate:

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review an appeal from a group of parents who claimed their suburban Washington-area school district was hiding transgender support plans involving their children. Three parents sued the Montgomery Country school district in Maryland over guidelines adopted in 2020 that allow schools to develop support plans for transgender students and “respect the students’ wishes to keep certain information confidential.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, made without explanation, left in place an appeals court ruling that the parents lacked standing to sue because they never established the plans were put in place for their children. It’s the latest in a series of cases where the high court has dodged the issue of transgender rights at school – often leaving in place lower court rulings that sided with trans students. “This case presents an issue on the merits that is roiling parents and school districts from Maine to California,” the parents who sued over the policy told the justices in their appeal last year. “It is important for parents, their children, and public schools alike to have this issue addressed and resolved now.” The school district said the guidelines were put in place to “ensure a safe and respectful school environment” for all students. The fact that a student chooses to disclose information to a teacher or administrator, the school said, “does not authorize school staff to disclose a student’s information to others.”

SCOTUS refuses to grant review for the John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education case regarding Montgomery County Public Schools' trans-inclusive policies that the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the parents lacked standing.

See Also:

Reuters: US Supreme Court won't hear Maryland school district gender identity case

[tomorrowusa]

The Illinois legislature passed an assault weapons ban earlier this year. On Friday the Illinois Supreme Court upheld that ban.

The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the state’s ban on assault weapons, meaning that law will stay in effect statewide. In a 4-3 decision issued Friday morning, the high court overturned a lower court’s ruling, stating the ban is constitutional and does not “deny equal protection nor constitute special legislation.” Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he was “pleased” with the ruling Friday and called it a win for “advocates, survivors, and families alike because it preserves this nation-leading legislation to combat gun violence and save countless lives.” “This is a commonsense gun reform law to keep mass-killing machines off of our streets and out of our schools, malls, parks, and places of worship,” he said in a statement. “Illinoisans deserve to feel safe in every corner of our state—whether they are attending a Fourth of July Parade or heading to work—and that’s precisely what the Protect Illinois Communities Act accomplishes.”

The law is not retroactive and those who legally bought such guns before the law went into effect can keep them. The differentiation between existing ownership and new ownership was the basis for the suit which SCOIL ruled on.

“To the extent plaintiffs allege they already possess restricted items, plaintiffs may retain them but may not acquire more, which matches the restrictions placed on those who are grandfathered under the Act,” the court wrote in its ruling. “The statutes treat plaintiffs who already possess assault weapons and LCMs the same as the grandfathered individuals.”

There will probably be other attempts to overturn the Illinois law. The Illinois assault weapons ban may very well end up before the US Supreme Court. A SCOTUS ruling against the Illinois law in an election year could set off a firestorm similar to what happened after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year.

The assault weapons law would not have been possible without a Democratic trifecta in Illinois.

After decades of treating state government like a poor cousin, Democrats in many states have taken a renewed interest in that level of governance. Michigan Democrats gained a trifecta in Michigan for the first time in over 35 years with the 2022 elections and passed a remarkable series of reforms in 100 days.

So good things happen when people get more involved in state politics. As I like to remind people, the first step is to find out who represents you in your state legislature. This site makes it easy to find that out...

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.

[angstbotfic]

affirmative action was systemic racism outlawing it is outlawing discriminative act which went against civil rights act. and no supreme court didnt condone discriminating against gay people against businesses. it said that if you are a creative you dont have to design something if it went against your religious beliefs this happened because those idiots decided to target a christian bakery for harassment. ( they rightfully refused to bake a cake with a lgbt design 1/2

2/2 because he felt it went against his religious beliefs they could have asked him to make a different cake without the design he would have made it for them ( I even recall that the baker even offered that ) its not like he said he doesnt serve gay people he just didnt want to put that design. they could have went somewhere else rather then targeting him ( I dont see them do this to a muslim bakery. or imagine someone going to a lgbt bakery and ask for a anti lgbt design cake

alright, my followers voted that i should answer this even though pretty much everything you have said is flat-out wrong.

i note that you didn't even address Roe. but let's put a pin in that.

so, affirmative action isn't systemic racism. it's an attempt to remedy systemic racism (though note that the chief beneficiaries have been white women). the only way you could believe that it is racism is if you believe that acting toward college populations that are more inclusive of people of color is racism against white people. which is absurd on its face.

that said, affirmative action is not a very good remedy for systemic racism. it intervenes on the wrong end, when people have already come out of deeply unequal schools with deeply unequal standardized tests and extracurriculars. when people have already come out of deeply unequal historically-redlined neighborhoods and deeply unequal family wealth directly caused by racialized dispossession. those folks don't tend to be helped much. but those problems are big and hard to solve. admitting a few more people in a fancy college is easy and makes people feel like they're making a difference to those big, hard problems. there's a good podcast from NPR about this, and it talks about how in admissions someplace like Harvard, it's a decision between Person A and Person B who both went to expensive private schools and their parents have boatloads of money. it's not doing a lot of heavy lifting for racial justice. but to the extent that elite institutions do give people advantages, gaining access to them is beneficial and should be more broadly available. a little bit of a solution is better than not trying, while we are working on those big, hard problems.

and abortion (here it is. told you it'd be back.) also intervenes on the wrong end. the right solution is comprehensive sex education and readily available contraception, so that people know how to, and have the resources to, not get pregnant. the right solution is also moving toward reproductive justice, so that people who do want kids are able to have them, such as a comprehensive social safety net. but those are big, hard problems. and letting people stop being pregnant if they don't want to be is a lot easier. a little bit of a solution is better than not trying, while we are working on those big, hard problems.

third, the 2023 SCOTUS decision was not about a cake at all. that was Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2018. this year's decision was 303 Creative, and it was a textbook case of "making up a guy to be mad at." a lady who made websites, who did not make wedding websites, sued to overturn a civil rights law because if she were to start making wedding websites, she'd have to make them for gay people. nobody had asked her to make one! because she didn't sell wedding websites! she had not in fact been harmed by that law at all, and the case should have immediately been dismissed for lack of standing, but a whole series of judges decided that didn't matter. so no, nobody harassed some Christian bakery.

in 303 Creative, the court essentially said that civil rights don't count if somebody can claim that discriminating against you is religious. it said that discrimination is free speech if you can say it's religious. the fundamental premise of that Civil Rights Act--you know, the one you waved around in your message--is that you can't deny access to public accommodations to somebody because you don't like the kind of person they are. if you're a business, you gotta serve everybody.

and you know, yeah, i think gay people should not be in a hurry to give any money to homophobes. until it's that the only gas station or restaurant or hotel for 100 miles won't serve you, and you're stranded in the middle of nowhere. until a doctor won't treat you.

and this court is just getting started on rolling back civil rights. Thomas laid it out in his concurrence in Dobbs. they're coming after Obergefell (same-sex marriage) and Lawrence (consenting adults can have whatever sex they want) and Griswold (birth control). i think some of the others are probably gunning for Loving (interracial marriage) and Brown (segregation). they're going to spend from now until 2054 undoing every bit of progress since 1954.

and Mitch McConnell is directly responsible for giving them the overwhelming majority that lets them do that. so if his imaginary sky man is real, he's gonna have a lot to answer for.

[dustedmagazine]

Matana Roberts — Coin Coin, Chapter Five: In the Garden (Constellation)

Photo by Anna Niedermeier

This is the fifth album of a projected 12 in Matana Roberts’s Coin Coin series, named after a slave, later activist, Marie Thérèse Coincoin. As with previous volumes, Coincoin’s biography intermingles with folk tales, slave stories and songs, and discussions of the rich, often tragic, history of African Americans. Another element of the Coin Coin series is the relationship between past and present. In this case, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the present mirrors the story of an illegal and fatal abortion conducted on one of Roberts’s ancestors. In the notes, she says,"I wanted to talk about this issue, but in a way where she gets some sense of liberation.” Rather than being shamed, as so many women currently are in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, in the lyrics Robert’s relative is described as, “electric, alive, spirited, fire, and free.”

Roberts is a versatile artist, a saxophonist and composer who not only works in musical contexts but in theater, fine arts, and poetry. The spoken word portions of Coin, Coin Chapter Five are performed by Roberts and poet Gitnajali Jain. The balance of spoken word and music is well-conceived. The music itself is performed by a host of prominent musicians and produced by Kyp Malone (TV on the Radio). Roberts covers a number of instruments in addition to saxophone, Darius Jones plays alto saxophone, Matt Lavelle, clarinet and trumpet, Mazz Swift, violin, Stuart Bogie, clarinet and bass clarinet, and Mike Pride and Ryan Sawyer play drums and percussion. Pretty much all the performers play tin whistles and sing.

Free jazz is an important component of Robert’s music-making, and it is here in abundance on “Different Rings,” “Shake My Bones,”  and “Predestined Confessions.” The arrangements of these complex pieces are well wrought throughout. “A Caged Dance,” trades a gorgeous post-bop solo with dissonant interjections, providing a polystylistic framework. This is not unique to “A Caged Dance.” A number of pieces combine different idioms. Malone’s synthesizer and Pride and Sawyer’s rockist drumming move the piece outside the jazz tradition. The chorused vocals that sing rounds and the children’s folk song, “All the Pretty Horses,” create some of the most memorable music on the album.

The closing track, “Ain’t I … Your mystery is our history,” with its plethora of tin whistles and jangly percussion, recalls both avant-classical and African music. It is significant that Roberts returns to a bespoke instrumentation and non-Western sound world to send the piece home. Less than halfway through, the Coin Coin series is engaging and ever new. Seven more installments: one is eager to hear what is next.

Christian Carey

[heywoodsays]

Overturning Roe Is McConnell’s Legacy as Much as It Is Trump’s

With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, overturning Roe v. Wade and 50 years of legal precedent has left a majority of Americans feeling troubled, upset, and angry. Many are rightfully channeling their anger toward SCOTUS, whose slate of decisions this session represents an alarmingly extremist, backward-looking, and divisive slant. Many are channeling their anger at the former President, who appointed three of the five judges in the majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson.

But let’s not forget the man who perhaps bears the lion’s share of credit for this – to use Justice Alito’s own term – egregious turn in American judicial history.

Mitch McConnell’s ruthless leadership of Senate Republicans since 2007 is the key element of the series of events that allowed Friday’s decision to transpire. His time as senate leader has been characterized by overreaching abuse of the filibuster and a propensity for changing procedural rules to achieve his objectives.

McConnell is the longest serving Senate Republican leader by far, surpassing Bob Dole by almost 4 years. Although he started out as a pro-choice moderate in the 60s, McConnell shifted strategies after a close election call in 1984 and embraced a more far-right agenda. In this respect, he perhaps embodies the dramatic shift in the Republican party over the last several decades.

McConnell stated in a 2010 interview with the National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” In that moment, he admitted, publicly, what we all already knew. Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats to enact policies that help the American people. They make no attempt to find middle ground and work together. They seek only to obstruct, so voters become frustrated with the inaction and inefficacy of Dems, and vote them out.

Two-thirds of Americans did not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Yet the former Senate majority leader, overseeing a GOP that represented a minority of Americans, has been able to dictate policy and assert an extremist agenda on an unwilling nation. Let’s look at how he accomplished this.

Step 1: Obstruct Obama Appointees

Americans saw firsthand, in constant media coverage, McConnell’s often successful attempts to block President Barack Obama’s legislative agenda. The 44th President boldly proclaimed the importance of seeking middle ground on a host of issues, including abortion, in his 2008 nomination speech. This sentiment was widely supported by Americans at the time, but data also showed the issue becoming more and more polarizing. McConnell capitalized on this division, painting the centrist Obama as an extremist socialist.

It worked. The right always viewed Obama as a radical leftist. And then there were Dems who wanted him to be a champion of the left, a task at which he often failed. Repeated attempts to find middle ground were met with rejection. Obama could achieve little in partnership with the other side, especially after Republicans regained control of the Senate in January 2015.

But what Americans didn’t see on their front pages or the nightly news were McConnell’s successful efforts to block Obama’s appointments of federal judges. McConnell held votes on just two Obama appointees during the then-president’s last two years in office.

Trump was able to fill all 54 vacancies, with mostly white men.

Step 2: Merrick Garland

There was one judicial blockade that the public got to see unfold. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, 270 days before election day. Just 10 days later, McConnell announced that there would be no hearing, and no vote on any appointee Obama may have.

This was shocking and had never been done before, but McConnell held firm, invoking the so-called “Biden Rule.” This rule supposedly suggested that the senate should not confirm a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court in an election year, and should instead wait to “give [voters] a voice.”

To be clear, no such rule exists. McConnell was referencing a comment made by Joe Biden in June 1992, an election year in which there was no Supreme Court vacancy. His comments were made in light of the recent contentious Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. It’s worth noting that Biden only advocated postponing any hearing until after Election Day and never proposed not considering a nominee at all.

It ended up being a non-issue. There was never an opening, or an appointee, and the Senate never voted on any such rule. Nonetheless, McConnell was able to use the decades-old words of Obama’s own vice president against him. Thomas’ nomination process, the longest for any confirmed justice in modern history, took 99 days from nomination to confirmation. Joe Biden made his senate remarks 132 days before Election Day 1992. Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016, 238 days before the 2016 election.

Step 3: Neil Gorsuch

McConnell’s gamble paid off. In a result that most could not predict, Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States. Merrick Garland would never get his day before the Senate, and Trump would get to appoint a justice for the open Supreme Court position.

Democrats (rightfully) cried foul. McConnell abused his power to subvert the will of the American people who had elected Barack Obama and given him the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for the duration of his term. Garland wasn’t even the biggest threat to McConnell’s agenda. Garland was a moderate. A theoretical President Hillary Clinton could have selected a much more progressive option.

Just 11 days after taking office, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a staunch pro-life conservative, to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch’s nomination process was not without controversy. Though in the majority, McConnell lacked the 60 votes needed to approve a Supreme Court justice.

So, he changed the rules. Invoking the “nuclear” option, McConnell lowered the threshold for approving an appointee from 60 votes to 50. After 20 hours of public testimony, Gorsuch was approved to SCOTUS with 54 votes. Three Democratic senators joined the majority – Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Step 4: Brett Kavanaugh

At the end of the SCOTUS session in June 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. Kennedy had been the swing vote on the court for years. He penned the majority opinion in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case that essentially made gay marriage the law of the land.

This was a gift to Trump and McConnell. Obama needed to pick a moderate like Garland to have any hope of a Republican-controlled Senate approving his nominee, should they even bother to consider him. Trump faced no such hurdle, and could appoint a stalwart conservative to fill the spot of the moderate Kennedy.

Trump nominated DC Appellate Court judge Brett Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018. Despite a history of advocating for pro-life causes, and passing Trump’s litmus test for only appointing pro-life judges, Kavanaugh insisted to senators like Maine’s Susan Collins that he was not going to overturn Roe. Kavanaugh proclaimed at his confirmation hearings, “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times.”

Kavanaugh’s abortion stance took backseat to the larger controversy – whether he had committed sexual assault against Christine Blasey Ford back in 1982. In the end, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48. Collins voted in favor.

Step 5: Amy Coney Barrett

Liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away on September 18, 2020, just 47 days before the 2020 election. More than a year earlier, McConnell had been very glib in his insistence that he would proceed with confirming any Trump appointee in 2020, even though it broke the rule he had invented in the previous election cycle. And he did.

With their hypocrisy on full display, Trump announced that he would nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020. With a mere 39 days before the election, Trump and McConnell though it appropriate to proceed with confirmation hearings. The previous five confirmation hearings took an average of 77.6 days. Recall from earlier that Merrick Garland was denied a hearing with 238 days before the election. There was no possible justification for proceeding with the nomination, but Trump and McConnell did anyway.

Naturally, Democrats bemoaned the Republicans’ haste. Coney Barrett was confirmed within 30 days of the announcement, the quickest since Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation in 2005. When Democratic senators questioned both the rush attempt and her lack of experience, Coney Barrett responded that she had turned over 1,800 pages of documents addressing her 30-year record. By contrast, her immediate predecessors presented much more – Kagan, 170,000 pages; Gorsuch, 180,000; Kavanaugh, more than a million.

Not a single senate Democrat voted for Coney Barrett’s confirmation. She’s the first Supreme Court justice since 1869 not to receive a single vote from the minority party.

A Lasting Legacy

The conservative supermajority on the current Supreme Court has been assembled through flagrant disregard for tradition, bipartisanship, and even the Constitution. Each of the three was put in place under dubious circumstances that required rejection of precedent and abandonment of reason. For as much credit as Trump gets for flooding the court with his judges, none of it would have been possible without McConnell’s shameless distortion of procedural norms. Like a petulant child who’s about to lose a game, he changed the rules to secure his desired outcome.

This is not to say that a Democrat in the same position wouldn’t do the same thing. But we haven’t seen that, so speculation is irrelevant. All we know is that McConnell did.

The January 6 hearings are showing us how close we came to having our democracy overthrown by a seditious megalomaniac. Millions of Americans believe an otherwise preposterous fabrication, that our election was stolen. It is a lie concocted by the old guard, terrified of losing the semblance of power they once held. Their backwards, racist, anti-feminist ideology seeks to return us to a time when people of color and women knew their place. Their big lie embodies their bigotry, seeking to subvert the will of a diverse electorate. In their minds, the will of people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and non-Christians is illegitimate. Theirs is the only true morality and the only valid vision.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the endgame. It is one landmark on a path of destruction of the principles of liberty and freedom, and restoration of the systems that oppress “the other.” As Justice Thomas openly admits, Friday’s decision paves the way for turning back the clock on contraception and gay marriage. (Interestingly, Thomas has been silent on Loving v. Virginia, which also uses the right to privacy to secure a right to interracial marriage.)

But even those are small pickings compared to the big picture. Filling the courts with judges to do their bidding was only the first phase of McConnell’s devious agenda. We are seeing the second phase unfold before our eyes, as Republic legislators across the country work to upend election laws, further marginalizing voters unlikely to agree with their policies. When the majority don’t agree with you, your best course of action is to silence the majority – to take away their voice.

The proposed changes to voting laws will undoubtedly favor Republic outcomes. This not only seeks to ensure the continued influence of a party that represents an increasingly minority viewpoint, but also floats the possibility of a re-emergent Trump or any of his successors that will move America closer to fascism.

These restrictive voter laws will inevitably find themselves before the courts. The next Presidential election might end up before the courts as well. McConnell has done everything to ensure he has the edge when that happens.

Image: Senator Mitch McConnell at Conservative Political Action Conference in 2011. Photo by Gage Skidmore. Used under CC BY-SA 2.0 / Cropped from original.

[coffeeheartaddict2]

Disunited states of Gilead

Book: Open Heart (post series)

Pairing: Ethan Ramsey x Casey Valentine

Warnings: ****trigger warning: This fic will mention very heavily the recent decision made by SCOTUS in relation to abortion access- if this is triggering please do not engage with this work*****

Category: Angst

Summary: Casey and Ethan’s reaction to the overturning of Roe v Wade both in a personal and professional context.

Disclaimer: Characters belong to Pixelberry

24th June 2022.

It started off like a normal Friday except Casey had a late start. She was at home and had the TV on with the news in the background. She had just finished cleaning the kitchen after breakfast when the news came in. It was now official. Roe v Wade had been officially overturned by SCOTUS. At that moment Casey had never been more ashamed to be an American. She was appalled a few months prior when documentation was leaked of a draft decision but now that it was official and it appeared that there was no change she was angry, she was sad and she was scared, not only for herself but for all the women that this affected.

She went to work in a daze. Massachusetts was thankfully a state that had some protection for abortions at a state level but she knew that if the political landscape of the state changed that could be different and what if federally those protections were over ruled? She personally only had one experience with needing abortive drugs and that was after her assault but it scared her because that option in that circumstance deserved to be exempt.

She was lost in her own thoughts that she did not see Ethan until she walked into him. He was about to ask what was up then he saw the look in her eyes and instead asked “It is official then?”

Casey nodded and Ethan grabbed her in for a hug.

Ethan too, is appalled at the decision. He knows that there is plenty of instances where calls have to be made on the grounds of the mother’s physical and mental health but this decision makes it hard to follow the Hippocratic Oath that they swear to follow. He is thankful that currently there is state protection but he knows that these things can be federalised if need be and he hoped that they did not reach that Dystopia. Ethan says he will speak to her later.

Meanwhile, in her office Caroline Bloom is a woman on a mission. When the draft decision was leaked she started the ball rolling on shoring up legal processes and starting an education suite to inform all medical staff what they can and can not do. She also embarked on plans for an education program to be delivered into schools and local community clinics as well as the clinic attached to Edenbrook in relation to consent, contraception as well as options available to them should they find themselves in an unplanned situation. Caroline hoped that this program would empower not just women from affluent backgrounds but also the marginalized in the community as she knew these decisions affected them the most. She called a late afternoon meeting for all department heads.

She started off the meeting expressing her sheer disgust at the decision handed down. She then stated that since the draft decision was leaked there had been work going on in the background to shore up privacy processes, as well as making a suite of educational programs for doctors and the community. She detailed all the plans. Casey was heartened that it appeared that the department heads were all on board with this suite of programs. Caroline also went into state that what they feel about abortion is a personal matter but she requested that we need to be respectful of people’s viewpoints and to not to push your on beliefs to others. You have all sworn an oath to not do harm, I understand that it can be at odds with belief but at the end of the day it is the well being, physical and mental that must take priority.

Despite the bad news Casey felt invigorated, that she worked not only in a state that for now has some protections but that her employer had been proactive and had been doing background work to ensure that there was education and legal protection. Caroline then also advised that there would be a lobbying committee that incorporates other hospitals in Boston to keep pressure on lawmakers at a state and federal level. Massachusetts’s right to have our own laws is still intact but it is important that rights not be overturned. The room broke out in applause. Casey was still apprehensive but this meeting made her feel a little less angry.

The meeting ended and Caroline was pleased that the meeting went well. She knew that there would be some doctors who may have pushed back but the department heads were on board and she knew if they were then that would trickle down too.

Tobias caught up with Casey on the way out and asked her if she would be joining the lobbying committee, He knew that Kenmore was one of the hospitals involved but he knew that many of the doctors involved were male. Casey was not sure butTobias stated that there were not many women that these rulings would affect that are high enough up to be on such committees. Casey realised Tobias did have a point, She knew Harper was still young enough to have children if she wanted but she knew being a co-head of department at 30 was unusual so she was in a unique position. Casey stated she would chat with Ethan. Tobias understood why she wanted to discuss it but he stated that she can do this. If anyone had told Casey this morning that she would have the fight restored in her by the end of the day she would have laughed. She was still angry at SCOTUS and by extension anyone who took women’s rights for granted but she was glad the fight was not dead. There was a rally on that night, it was a large rally and thankfully peaceful. Casey finished her shift and returned home. She was happy to see Ethan when she entered their apartment. He embraced her and gave her a kiss. “This is not over” Casey smiled because she had a partner who not only respected her rights but the rights of all women. “I hope you are right Ethan, I hope you are right.”

Authors note: I am sure we are all appalled at the decision handed down. Yet another time I am thankful that I live here in Australia. I know some of you live in states that have some legal protections and have people with

Some intelligence is running them but still this decision would be scary for all of you. Keep up the fight and fuck the patriarchy!!!

Tagging: @jerzwriter @jamespotterthefirst @genevievemd @bex-la-get @a-crepusculo @crazy-loca-blog @ofmischiefandmedicine @liaromancewriter @potionsprefect @binny1985 @schnitzelbutterfingers

@choicesficwriterscreations @openheartfanfics

[samueldays]

"Fascist" is an empty slur

The Revelations of Twitter, an ongoing series:

Rashida Tlaib is no ordinary bluecheck, but a Congresswoman.

To briefly summarize the SCOTUS decision she's whining about, West Virginia v. EPA: it says that Congress is the legislative body and Congress has to exercise legislative power to give EPA clear directives and specific instructions, EPA can't have open-ended grants of power to "regulate" in a manner that resembles secondhand legislation decided by the EPA's interpretation instead of Congress.

This decision ensures that legislative power rests more in the hands of elected officials answering to the public -- like Rashida Tlaib -- and less in the hands of agencies which are a step removed from that.

It may be a bad decision for other reasons, like overworking Congress with too much minutiae that Congresscritters know too little about. Perhaps Congress should delegate more power, and the EPA should have more regulatory authority. But this decision is nothing like Benito Mussolini's dictatorship of Italy. Tlaib calling it "fascist" is just a slur. She hates the decision and calls it rude names.

[greenconverses]

Recently read: July’s been a slow reading month. The heat is really not conducive to reading, no matter how much time I spent poolside. 

I checked out The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene Foster before the Roe v. Wade decision went down, mostly in anticipation of the SCOTUS ruling, and read it the weekend after. It was good to have something with actual data and outcomes to focus on instead of my own anxieties. Would recommend if you want to read real stories and outcomes, and dispel some of the myths around abortions and healthcare in the U.S. (★★★★★)

The Good Girl’s Guide to Rakes by Eva Leigh was a delight. Love an unexpectedly spunky heroine and a hero who gets knocked off his feet by her. Looking forward to future books in this series! (★★★★)

Also loved The Lady Tempts An Heir by Harper St. George. A charming fake engagement story with quality characters and development. (★★★.75)

And finally, The Dating Playbook. I really enjoyed the first book in this series and I was having fun with this one initially... annnnnd then we hit the sprained ankle scene and I just stopped caring about everything from there. The inaccuracies threw me out of the book, as did the overall plot about the hero trying to get back into the NFL after an injury. If you’re writing about sports injuries, do your research! Additionally, the romance was bland and the sex scenes were boring, so the rest of the book was a real bummer. (★★)