I tend to lean into the sociology of religion as the framework for discussing religion in society, a viewpoint that ignores metaphysics or any assessment of the validity of religion. While there may be non-religious individuals, I think the idea of a society completely devoid of religion is sociologically impossible.
Yes we did
This. Religion came before everything. When civilizations sprang up, their religion that had existed for millennia was the bedrock of their beliefs and rituals. When civilizations collapsed, people lost their writing, knowledge of the history, their technological advancements, a huge chunk of their culture. But their religion stuck around, just as it was around before the rise of the great cities.
Even Christian missionaries had to capitulate to pagan rituals like Easter, offerings, icon worship, when they converted natives. People were willing to be ruled and even enslaved if the alternative meant losing their lives. But many died refusing to give up their religious beliefs. It’s just so core to who we are.
Human beings do not like to think bad stuff happens by chance. It’s very unsettling.
Tbf his takes on Mormons are probably more accurate in places other than Utah. At least it seems to me that people lighten up a little on the orthodoxy here.
You should have gratitude that your life experience affords you the luxury of enlightenment.
Some people never had that chance.
2 Likes
Have you read the text of the actual Roe v Wade decision?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
I believe most law students will have read Roe in con law II. It’s a pretty impressive opinion, even if equal protection should have been emphasized to a greater extent. We read Roe and Casey and probably 2 other lesser abortion opinions. Casey stuck me as leaving the door open to major abortion restrictions, which is exactly what happened.
Probably undergrads also for various prelaw, poly sci, or modern history classes.
Impressive in what way? Even supporters of abortion rights seem to think it was poorly written.
The whole trimester framework seems arbitrary and reverse-engineered to lead to some sort of compromise outcome. I agree generally with Roe that the state has compelling interests in protecting both the health of pregnant women and the potentiality of human life. I think a balancing test is the correct way to resolve any conflict between these interests. The trimester approach does not seem like a good way to balance those interests.
5-4 podcast on this is A++
1 Like
Direct quote from Peter: “The Democrats are a pathetic group of absolute fucking losers.”
Really, the entire end section where they light the Dems on fire is better than the predictable roast of Alito.
2 Likes
If packing the court doesn’t solve the problem, then would dutifully voting and campaigning so that you can win elections, replace conservative judges with liberal judges, and reinstate Roe/Casey work? Probably not.
The thing about the modern Supreme Court that the discourse does not seem to have digested yet is that the judges have mostly figured out that they can pick the ideology of their successor by strategically retiring. You do still see some occasional deaths while in office, either due to surprise or stubbornness, but, by and large, judges these days retire when they know they will be replaced by someone who thinks like they do. And these kinds of strategic retirements are likely to be even more prevalent in the future.
This means that, unless Democrats can figure out how to string together a nearly unprecedented string of one-party rule that makes it impossible for conservative judges to find a window to strategically retire in, the current partisan balance of the Supreme Court is, more or less, permanent.
Another liberal reaction to the Alito opinion has been to correctly point out that judicial review — the process by which the Supreme Court declares laws unconstitutional — is not even in the constitution. But it is unclear what liberals who say this think it means in this case.
I have long thought that judicial review should not exist and that the court should not have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This is apparently a fringe belief in US politics, especially among liberals who seem to think that allowing policy items to be enacted through constitutional pronouncements will mostly favor them.
They are of course mistaken: judicial review can enact conservative policy just as easily as liberal policy. The Supreme Court used judicial review to create a constitutional right to abortion in Roe, but, if it wanted to, it could also use judicial review to create a constitutional ban on abortion (see Germany in 1975).
In general, I think judicial review is more often used for bad than for good and also think that, from a pure governmental process perspective, it makes no sense to give this kind of power to a nine-person legislative body of philosopher-kings that, like real kings, mostly select their own successors.
https://mattbruenig.com/2022/05/04/reactions-to-the-alito-opinion/
Yep it was soooooooooo good.
They can also luckbox into a string of surprise deaths. Die, Clarence, die!
The 5-4 idea of immediately filling every open lower court seat with hard core pro choice judges is sooooooo fucking obvious. The fact that dems won’t do this at all is complete proof they are in on all this.
I’m not really finding it compelling. Feels more like red meat for people who want to feel outraged. That can be useful propaganda, but I’m not really feeling anything while listening. Of course, I understand I’m wired a bit differently, but I don’t feel like I’m learning anything.
Lol
I am the product of a mid 30s catholic mother that was on the pill in 1964. Clearly it didn’t work.