Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
All good points. I don't know enough about it, but how does this play out in Australia? On the one hand it strikes me as a mostly secular country, but has its 'Christian militants', such as Margaret Court in Western Australia. Are these fringe elements? Then there is the Catholic Church. I say this also because I think some American 'Evangelicals' have been in and out of Australia either for some, or again since the 1970s.
They are not generally as militant as in the US, but Christians definitely still have some influence, mainly in the Liberal (conservative) Party. 38 per cent of the voters still voted no on the same-sex marriage plebiscite. However, no mainstream politician is likely to propose outlawing abortion, so that is certainly a fringe issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Interestingly, the current Prime Minister is a member of the Hillsong Church, a US-style evangelical outfit. However, he has been trying to distance himself since the founder was disgraced and forced to resign.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-...race/100934680
A "oversight" by the Democratic Party also lies in the number of Conservative Catholic Hispanics....
How does a Professor of Law in a School ranked 118 in the US walk into the Oval Office in 2020 and become one of the most influential lawyers in a battery of White House lawyers, responsible, in whole or in part for the novel interpretation of the Constitution enabling the Vice-President to delay certification of the 2020 election on the basis that it was so flawed as to be unacceptable without further investigation -and regardless of what 60 Courts of law had stated before January 6th ---??
Is it possible that Eastman entered the Oval Office on the recommendation of Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Eastman clerked presumably in his younger days? My guess is that a lot of aspiring lawyers 'clerk' for a Senior Justice, do all of them for that reason have automatic access to the President?
Or could it be that Clarence told Ginny, and Ginny told Rudy, and Rudy told Donny, and so it goes...? And is this an even more reasonable grounds for investigating Clarence Thomas than the Justices who according to AOC are liable to be impeached for lying under Oath with regard to their view that Roe-vs-Wade was 'settled law' -until they voted against it?
And since when has Clarence Thomas become the most vocal and activist Justice? For years he was famous for having nothing to say. What motivates him now? He seems to be leading the charge against established Freedoms and Rights though while he indicates a medieval hostility to same-sex marriage, gay sex (Sodomy! Buggery!) and Contraception, there is no sign he is thinking of recommending the repeal of laws enabling 'Inter-Racial' Marriage....
Could the House Committee on January 6th Subpoena Thomas to appear before it and explain what role he played, if at all, in the Republican attempt to deny the American people the validity of their votes?
More on the above. I listened to the one hour phone call 45 had with Brad Raffensperger in Georgia and had to ask myself who is Cleta Mitchell?
According to Wikipedia she was a Democrat up to the mid 1990s and has since veered right sharply. She says on the call Georgia will not give them the data so they can make their own check of the vote, but the State legally cannot release this information to third parties. In other words, she is ignorant of the law in Georgia, but implies the State is deliberately withholding the evidence they need to prove fraud.
But this is the intriguing claim -that it was Mitchell who brought John Eastman into the White House, and the link? Ginni Thomas-
"Prior to the 2020 election, she organized legal efforts to challenge mail-in ballots cast in the election.[23] Mitchell has worked closely with Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, in the Council for National Policy to organize efforts to keep Trump in power, and The New York Times reported that it was Mitchell who "enlisted John Eastman, the lawyer who crafted specious legal theories claiming Vice President Mike Pence could keep Mr. Trump in power..."
Cleta Mitchell - Wikipedia
Incidentally, the phone call is a grim reminder of just what an obsessed fruit cake Trump is. If anyone has ever listened to the whole of his speeches, they will be aware that he repeats himself again, and again, and again. So i noted down the number of times he said things repeatedly-
He claims he won Georgia 'by a lot', not once, but 13 times.
He says he needs 11, 780 votes not once, but 14 times.
He says Ruby Freeman is 'a professional vote scammer and Hustler', and refers to her not once, but 10 times. Pity she can't sue for libel.
He says ballots were shredded or burned not once, but 7 times.
All of the claims are refuted 'Your numbers are wrong' -but 45 refuses to accept the truth, count the numbers again and 'Ultimately I win'.
The call is on YouTube if you have an hour to spare.
You have to wonder if any of the Justices on the Supreme Court think this is just- or maybe they are as determined as Trump and his fake Christians, to inflict as much suffering on America's children as they can.
"A10-year-old rape victim in Ohio was denied an abortion, sparking outrage online as many Republican-led states strip away reproductive rights following the Supreme Court's overruling of Roe v. Wade.Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis, received a call last Monday, three days after the Court's ruling, from a child abuse doctor in Ohio who had a 10-year-old girl in their office who was six weeks and three days pregnant, and therefore ineligible to receive an abortion in the state, according to a report from The Indianapolis Star."
'She's 10': Child Rape Victim's Abortion Denial Sparks Outrage on Twitter (newsweek.com)
The Thomas Court reigns Supreme, high in the land, breezin' through the park. The man has form, and a simple ignorance of the American Revolution, and, well, the law! But when he refers to Sport, and Targets, maybe he did have Highland Park in mind, after all, he has either ignored the phrase 'a well organized militia', or just doesn't know what it means. Boom!
And with that I wish you all a calmer, more peaceful, life-affirming summer.
"US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas had written a dissent ruling against an automatic weapons ban in Highland Park almost a decade before the 4 July mass shooting at the Illinois city in which six were killed and 36 injured.An ordinance, signed by mayor Nancy Rotering on 24 June 2013, had read: “The City Council has determined that assault weapons are traditionally not used for self-defence in the city of Highland Park and that such weapons pose an undue risk to public safety.”
Mr Thomas had, in his dissent in 2015 when the Supreme Court had refused to hear the challenge on the ordinance, said it “criminalises modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semi-automatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defence, hunting, and target shooting.”
“Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” he wrote, describing assault rifles as “modern sporting rifles”, a terminology often used by those favouring bans on restrictions of guns.
He continued: “The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defence and target shooting,” he wrote in his dissent. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
Clarence Thomas wrote dissent opinion on assault rifle ban in Highland Park nearly a decade ago (yahoo.com)
I thought this article was a funny parody of originalist theory. It ridicules the pseudo-scientific method of trying to divine original intent by cherry-picking a legal history that is not exactly well documented and is not American either. Of course, I don't have any objection to English law as much of our common law derives from it and it is the source of many rights as well as procedures that are part of our legal system. It's just that mining this history can be difficult because it's not clear what our framers wanted to adopt and what they wanted to rebel against.
I also am not necessarily saying it's good to protest someone's dinner. I don't think Kavanagh suffered much harm and his ruling will mean many women suffer and die but I am not sure what the most effective form of protest is either. Just meant as an attack on the methodology being used to strike down civil rights protections.
Anyhow enjoy https://newrepublic.com/article/1670...l-right-dinner
When is a district boundary 'race based'? When it's in Alabama! This seems to me to capture the race-based dilemma of American law, politics and society, but the blatant attempt to collapse the 'Black vote' into one district merely emphasises the need for electoral reform. I don't see how or why States should control districting, and that an Independent Electoral Commission should draw the boundaries based on a range of factors, such as income, social background, rural-urban and so on, and attempt to achieve a balance in each district. What the US has had for so long just inflames opinions, and seems intended to do so.
Nevertheless, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes compelling arguments on the purpose behind the 14th and 15th Amendments, or maybe these are too 'recent' for Thomas and Alito?
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pummels Alabama attorneys over ‘race blindness’ in major voting rights case (yahoo.com)
A bleak forecast for Moore v Harper...
The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court (yahoo.com)