• The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They’ll “leave it up to the states” I’m sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.

    I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Leaving it up to the states” is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotus….

      • eronth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        They’d just rule that you can’t retroactively kill marriages, but future ones could be banned. Or something similar.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t doubt it. However if Trump’s team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he’d fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain’t.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I don’t think they’ll send it down the pipe, or be successful if they try. The process tends to have to start at the lower courts and work their way up. In all likelihood, lower courts would simply strike it down, and the appeals court wouldn’t see any reason to change that.

              There are ways to skip those intermediate steps, and they could certainly try to invent a whole new process just for the case. But when one of their biggest allies on the court has a clear reason to be against it, why even try? They have a hundred other cases they’d rather do to hurt people. If you follow the domino metaphor in OP, then Loving is way towards the back.

      • madjo@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        He’ll be asked (forced) to step down during this Republican’s President’s term, and he’ll be replaced by a christian nationalist white dude. And then they’ll overturn Loving v Virginia.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Nah he’ll get declared an “Honorary Aryan” so the marriage remains legal.

          Then when the 2028 auto-coup happens, he’ll get purged like what happened with the Jewish Nazis.

          It will be known as the the Night of the Long Knives AR-15s

          Leopard… Face… ye know

          🤦‍♂️

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?

      • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.

        A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.

        Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.

          So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.

          So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.

          • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Maybe Canada was more proactive than the USA but it’s still a result of the type of legal system they use, that wouldn’t happen with Civil law.

            There’s still plenty of things in Canada that are left to precedence, we don’t pass laws every time something comes up.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    We need to regroup. Anyone who cares for the above needs to join the same movement. Put your personal feelings aside and stand together, it’s the only chance we’ve got to stop everything from unraveling.

      • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        We need our grassroots organizations to collaborate more and we need people to move towards those organizations. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s not going to be easy, a lot of these organizations are slow moving due to their financial burdens and lack of general support, but there’s more urgency now than ever.

  • maplebar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I believe in free speech but I’m more concerned about freedom from religion than freedom of religion.

    Democratic secular society is on a sharp decline all over the world.

    • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Although you don’t like religion, it’s one of the dominos that fall in the line of authoritarian control. When it falls, other dominos fall with it.

      • maplebar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Religion has been used for millennia as a mechanism for authoritarian control.

        Like I said, I support free thought and speech. Be religious if you must buy into a cult of mass delusion. But true freedom means freedom from religious law in a secular and democratic society.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If we are to (correctly) have freedom of religion, the working class must remain armed to put down the religious’ inevitable grasp at taking over the nation state.

        These people are mentally ill, and work tirelessly to make their delusions your reality.

        Source: your reality

        • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          If we are to (correctly) have freedom of religion, the working class must remain armed to put down the religious’ inevitable grasp at taking over the nation state.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’d just like to highlight how unhelpful this type of discussion is.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It lines up with the message of the image. If you’re willing to sacrifice one set of rights then all rights are up for negotiation as well. Feel free to explain to me how that’s not the case.

    • maplebar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago
      • Did throwing the election to Trump and the Republicans do anything to help save Palestine or end the war?
      • How would you describe what happened on October 7th, 2023?
      • Are you willing to concede that the Palestinians also have had agency and culpability in the events that have lead up to today?
      • Do you accept that calls for “Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea”, as well much of the historical rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, has been openly calling for genocide against Israeli Jews?
      • Would you be willing to acknowledge that both Israelis and Palestinians have some loose historical claim to the Levant based on the tribal lineage of their people going back >3000 years?
      • Would you describe Islam as a “religion of peace” even though it was spread almost entire through violent conquest going back to ~600AD?
      • Do you believe in a two-state solution?
      • Do you believe that America has a duty to the protection and support of its own people over any duty to solve the problems of the rest of the world?
  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you don’t stand for the rights of others, there’ll be nobody left to stand for your’s - so get standing!

  • ManixT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unless that group is Pro-Palestine, then literally every other group can look out for themselves because logic be damned.

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I would put literacy right in front because apparently there’s a disturbing amount of people who don’t know what words mean almost.

    To understand anything, you need a sense of literacy.

    • FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 hours ago

      21% of American adults are illiterate (54% read below a 6th grade level)

      17% of Canadian adults are illiterate.

      I keep coming back to these points as it’s important context when understanding the news.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That’s… horrifying. I had no idea it was that high. I have to wonder how anyone can be illiterate, after watching my kids learn to read, and how little effort it took (on my part I mean, they were putting effort into it, because they wanted to)

        • FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I should point out that a portion of the stat comes from immigrants who are fully literate in their native language.

          National literacy as a topic forms an interesting picture that I don’t fully understand.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            58 minutes ago

            Yeah the data is kinda fucky cause of that, this has always been a factor too one of my ancestors spoke decent English but could only read and write in German he was considered technically illiterate.

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It looks to me like it’s ordered from more progressive to more fundamental, so literacy should be the last one, really. Trans rights is the newest major one, so it’s the first to fall.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Afghanistan in the 1970s. Once the billionaires start funding the religious extremists to take away your rights it only goes one direction

    • lseif@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      “imagine a different message, that would be a different message”. wow… really goes to show, huh…

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      “I’m a well-off straight white middle-aged individual and I got mine so fuck everyone else” --you

  • shastaxc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    i don’t understand the secondary text on those past rights. What are they supposed to represent? I can’t even read any past Free Love

    • taipan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      16 hours ago
      1. Trans rights
      2. Gay rights, Freedom of expression
      3. Women’s rights, Free love
      4. Free speech, Democracy
      5. Freedom of religion, Modernity
      6. Literacy
  • MellowYellow13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    As well as lack of affordable or even free healthcare, lack of affordable housing, lack of vacation time, lack of decent pay, lack of maternity and paternity time, lack of affordable healthy food.

    It is really becoming lack of anything and everything. The only thing that has rights in this country are guns and vehicles.