Is left wing outrage as unhinged as right wing outrage?

[Fred Sanders]

Of course, it is not. But there are some parallels and the trifecta of SCOTUS cases proves it.


Buffer zones: means abortion clinics have to adjust their buffer zones a bit.....it was 9-0 on the principle of free speech, and a 5-4 majority requiring Mass to rewrite a new security law. Regular harassment laws still do apply, get them enforced and now maybe they will be.

Union ruling: barely nudged the meter, employees who are more like contractors do not have to pay dues.

Hob Lob: a little more concerning, but the alleged start of Maria Law is a long process of the courts having to now interpret every religious belief as genuine and every individual applicant as a family corp. It is going to be a long and boring and expensive process. Key is "long". So get new Justices, keep the same kind of Presidents. For the moment all that is effected is 4 of 16 contraceptives Hob Lob will not pay for, all are post zygote formation drugs.

.............

So put out the hair on fire and stop acting like the enemy, it only encourages them. All the calls of doom before all these decisions turned out to be media manipulation of the left wing.

The liberal media is not much more accurate on legal matters than the right wing, the rush to be first trumps the rush to be accurate. All the media is out to self promote and be the first, you have to seek out your sources with caution, and hold your fire until the smoke clears, because being accurate in law is much more important than being the first and the loudest.

Just saying, now fire away.

[Anansi1171]

1. Fred, our reaction is sane and justified. These important cases are harbingers.

It's not insane to, par example, suggest that faith organizations are playing simple politics and are thus violating the spirit and letter of the law.

Or to point out judicial activism. What happened to speaking truth?

And should we moderate our passion less than six months before a pivotal election?

The SCOTUS is erasing hard-fought gains, Amazing, man, just Amazing!

[Fred Sanders]

2. You misunderstand. Of course, passion, of course. But accuracy is important, false passion based on

False facts is not the way to go. There is too much of that already.

I do not think hard won gains, as they were, and I know all about all of those gains, every one, are being rolled back. Not yet, it may be coming to that, but not yet.

[kcr]

22. If accuracy were important you'd undrstand that why your comments about BC are in error

That is RW spin that has been touched upon over and over during the discussion here on DU.

[leftyohiolib]

3. yet there are people on this board who still in the light of all that scotus is will still

not support a dem candidate for prez

[Fred Sanders]

4. It is a 5 to 4 court, with a couple of conservative Justices a bit wobbly on the con side.

It is not a complete disaster, solvable by simple greater turnout of unlikely Dem voters. It is not the crisis proportions so many think. Of course I am swimming against the tide, who does not love them a crisis?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. I will support any Dem candidate who

actually is a Democrat. Ie, embraces the Dem party platform and places the rights of actual humans before the 'rights' of corporations, and works for all Americans, not just the 0.01%.

I won't vote for someone just because they put a (D) after their name. Heck, even Arlen Specter tried that.

[leftyohiolib]

11. and here it is, the person who would cut off their foot to spite theeir leg

the problem is there are people working very hard to get dems into office and youre happy to say fuck u and all your hard work i have my principles. meanwhile scotus takes away one right after another. your priciples are not ging to help someone who now will need a back alley abortionist but at least you have your principles

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Why do you do that? Why launch into a personal attack like that? What do you think you gain?

Does being mean win elections for Democrats where you come from?

[leftyohiolib]

23. well to me the attitude of the poster is beyond mean not only to myself but to

all else here who are trying to rid us of the republican reign. then along come "democrats" who rather than try to protect social security, medicare, the environment, our legal system, women's health issues, our economic model (as another poster put it), our education system and all the other issues republicans are blo9cking or destroying, rather than protect that stuff will bypass the election over becuase the dem candidate is a little too center. it's self destruction at it most ridiculousness and it's beyond maddening

[Bluenorthwest]

56. That does not explain anything. You leave the issue aside and attack the poster personally.

It's the label not the content that cooks your casserole?
Because David Duke ran as a Democrat. Would you be voting for that? If not, then you too have standards, which is what the other poster also has. Seems you might have some understanding rather than just a bunch of invective.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. any democrat is better than any republican....hands down

[Bluenorthwest]

69. So you'd vote for David Duke, avowed racist, because he 'ran as a Democrat'? Seriously?

My lord. A hell of a thing to say.

[leftyohiolib]

87. could david duke make it thru the primaries?

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. because we are not standing for wishy washy "Dems"

Anymore.....this "i will only vote for..." tripe some are spouting are just the words of ideologues. There are places in this country where a far left Dem cannot get elected. And this claim means you wont support them otherwise.....which is prima facia support for the opposing Republican candidate.....because your nieghbor Democrats do not favor Liberalism like we do.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Listen up VR. I'm a second generation Democrat with elected officials in my family history

I was there for Chicago 68 and in LA when Bobby was shot. I've never missed an election, I always vote for the Democratic candidates and have in fact been vital to the winning of vote blocks for some of the very Democrats you think YOU support. This is not a general election, this is not yet even a Primary. Do you understand the difference? I grew up with it, so I sure as fuck do.
You are in agreement with a thread by a guy who will not say if he is Pro Choice, will not say if he supports LGBT rights, will not say if he supports Unions, but who is advising others to be silent about these issues. Did you notice that part? Or were you too busy creating invective about other voters wanting a good candidate in an election in which no candidates have so much as announced?
Right now, as a Democrat, I have a few Democratic actual candidates to support in an actual upcoming election for which we have already had a Primary, in which I voted. Merkley and DeFazio. They are our nominees. Right now. For the election coming this fall, not for the general after the Primary after the next election. Right now.
Funny that you and Fred do not mention the current, actual upcoming election at all. Funny, but not 'ha ha' funny.
In campaign season, bleating out invective is a vote loser, no matter what that invective might be. Intimidation is a very negative tactic and Americans reject it and consider it to be definitive of a campaign. I advise against it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. then stop pretending you dont know this....

[Bluenorthwest]

71. It's as if you did not even read what I wrote. Afraid to discuss issues, much like the OP.

You did not respond to any of the points I made or questions I asked you. You just flung some bull. Not impressive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. this is Democratic underground....not Third Party

Underground. We know what the Party Platform is...

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Totally unresponsive and utterly inapplicable.

The lack of respect in your exchanges with others along with your agreement with the OP of this thread define you. It's pitiful.

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Yeah you opinion gives me a sad....

[Enthusiast]

114. +3

[Enthusiast]

113. +2

[Enthusiast]

112. +1

[TheKentuckian]

70. As far as I can tell, you and that mouse in your pocket ONLY stand for wishy washy Democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. and who do you and the mouse in your pocket

Think I Support?

[grasswire]

79. !!!

you said it better than I could

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. and they subsequently scored a hide for it...

Still applauding?

[grasswire]

99. does anyone have the guts to post the jury results?

I'd like to see this one.

Is "Turd Way" on the naughty list now?

[Enthusiast]

116. +1

[grasswire]

122. I wouldn't say "Turd Way", personally

But I advocate for others' right to speak freely. A little potty talk. Who has time to worry about that?

[Bobbie Jo]

129. No jury here, but...

I'm pretty sure accusatory insults are still on the "naughty list."

[grasswire]

133. it was PM'd to me

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: FED UP with this shit.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This kind of divisive bullshit is uncalled for.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: .
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Tough call. It was a pretty good rant and stayed on policy rather than personal issues, but it is phrased in such a way that the poster is "speaking" for someone else. A very small change, like "Are you the kind of person who would support" as opposed to "I think you support" would have been enough for me to let it stay.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: TheKentukian tells it like it is.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: a strongly worded opinion

[HangOnKids]

130. You have 3 n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. and?

[HangOnKids]

135. Well you had to make a point that the post was hidden

Yet you have three. See that was easy!

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. and?

am I supposed to be intimidated? Is that somehow supposed to somehow cow me?

[HangOnKids]

137. OH for fuck sake

Keep up with the 27 posts per day, the rest of us will go on with life.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. yea for fucks sake.....who's counting besides you?

perhaps you need to get a life first....I don't spend mine counting other people's posts...

[Enthusiast]

115. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. I'm saying I won't vote for people who agree with the very

decisions you're decrying. I won't vote for a Dem who happens to be good on anything but women's reproductive rights, for instance. Or one who doesn't care about the separation between Church and State, so that decisions like this get made.

You can't say 'oh, it's all good if we elect these people, as long as they don't wind up on the supreme court'.

They're intimately connected. When you elect people who only care about the 0.01%, you wind up with supreme court justices who give corporations the right to take away birth control from employees.

I'm not the one pushing 'back alley abortions'. You are.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Not feeling exactly as you do perpetuates the two party system that is strangling democracy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. no it isnt.....thats republicans.

If you want a third party.....then you need Third Party Underground.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Now you are getting it.

nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. why now? i have always understood this...

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Really?

You are here on a thread in which you are agreeing with the OP. I do not agree with the OP and I really don't agree with the way the OP has conducted himself on this thread.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. i have always supported Democrats here and elsewhere

I dont add caveats.. ..why do you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. then you vote Republican instead

Its very simple really.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

103. Well, no, no I don't.

But I've noticed you constantly jump to very weird conclusions, so I'm not surprised in the least that was how you interpreted what I said.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. How is this weird....to we women...NOT voting for the Democratic Primary winner IS exactly

the same outcome for US!

So forgive me if I do not have sympathy for you...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

106. When you vote for all these blue dog so-called dems

they turn around and vote to accept justices like Alito and Roberts. And you get outcomes like this.

This is the inexorable conclusion of 'lesser evil voting'. You constantly choose candidates who, while claiming to be Democrats, constantly 'compromise' with RWers, instead of holding firm and forcing them to come up with moderate picks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. What Blue Dogs....most of em got taken out by teabaggers in the last Midterm...

do try to keep up!

[neverforget]

140. My Congressman Kurt Schrader is a blue dog. Loves him some Cat Food Commission aka

Simpson-Bowles. The sad thing is, he doesn't need to be a conservative Democrat in this district to survive elections. He just chooses to give the 99% a little dose of Third Way BS. Blue Dogs/Third Way Democrats are still around.

Please do try to keep up.

Link to Congressman Schrader's stand on Simpson-Bowles.
http://schrader.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=322794

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. Okay your Congressman....did I say there were none?

I hope you are still keeping up....

[neverforget]

146. And here's the list of Blue Dogs. They exist and help Republicans.

http://bluedog.schrader.house.gov/about/members.htm


Blue Dog Leadership in the 113th Congress
Rep. John Barrow, Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Jim Cooper, Co-Chair for Policy & Legislative Strategy
Rep. Kurt Schrader, Co-Chair for Communications & Outreach
Membership in the 113th Congress

Rep. Ron Barber (AZ-02)
Rep. John Barrow (GA-12)
Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Rep. Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Rep. Jim Costa (CA-16)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Rep. Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Rep. Daniel Lipinksi (IL-03)
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Rep. David Scott (GA-13)
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-05)

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. asdf

Four years ago, they were the most influential voting bloc on Capitol Hill, more than 50 House Democrats pulling their liberal colleagues to a more centrist, fiscally conservative vision on issues such as health care and Wall Street reforms.

Now, the Blue Dog Coalition is a shell of its former self, shrunken to just 15 members because of political defeat, retirements after redrawn districts left them in enemy territory and just plain exhaustion from the constant battle to stay in office. Several are not running for reelection in November, and a few others are top targets of Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/blue-dog-democrats-whittled-down-in-number-are-trying-to-regroup/2014/01/15/37d4e7e2-7dfd-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

[neverforget]

144. Yet they help enable Republicans and their policies and they call themselves Democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. But they are not an influential power to the rest of the Democrats so you were off the mark there

they are a shell of what they once were.....just 4 long years ago....

[neverforget]

148. Lol! 19 is a pretty large number of Democrats that vote with Republicans on economic

policies that devastate the vast majority of American workers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. its a fraction of the 50 they numbered 4 yrs ago....sorry....

they ain't steering the ship right now....they are busy regrouping...

[neverforget]

150. Just keep minimizing the Republican enablers....

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. they got themselves "minimized".....

had nothing to do with me.......

[Scuba]

12. I've never seen that. I have seen ...

... people on this board who will not support a neo-con candidate who is pretending to be a Dem.

See, for many of us it's about principles, not party. If our tent is so big that we have no principles, then we should disband the party.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Stand or fall on your core principles. The cons do.

And when you stand on those principals you generate the passion, not unhinged allegiance, true passion founded on unshaken principals. A manifesto if you will, a Red Book.

It is the old refrain that lawyers say, that the client standing on principles makes only the lawyers rich, but you have to make a choice, and I choose passion and principals along with you.

[leftyohiolib]

28. principles are a luxury that wont do you any good without the power to hang on to them

principles over party right now is going to put more tea-baggers in charge.

[Scuba]

30. Do you realize the folly in your statement?

What good is power without principles? The power to enact the other side's agenda? No thanks.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Purity is required of the left wing also?

[Scuba]

35. Purity? No, but it's a long, long road from purity to the Third Way.

[Fred Sanders]

36. It is a quandary, the standing on principals thing, because then what was the black voting for

Cochrane all about? The people I most respect in the voting debate abandoned their principles to vote for a good racist over a bad racist, it puzzles me.

[leftyohiolib]

34. "What good is power without principles?" that wasnt my statement

[Scuba]

37. Nope, you said that sticking to principles would empower the Tea Party. I can't disagree more.

It's sticking to our principles that will propel Democrats into office. If we're just Republican-lite, then we will lose.

[leftyohiolib]

59. you cant disagree more? people stuck to their principles in 2010 and what did that give us?

the tea-baggers. hey can u tell me what principles are more important than scotus, principles that scotus cant take away? just so i know what youre talking about.

[Scuba]

63. To suggest that the Tea Party victories in 2010 were due to the Democratic Party running ....

... candidates who were too progressive is disingenious, but exactly what I would expect from corporate-Democrat Third Way neo-cons who are trying to undermine traditional Democratic Party principles.

[leftyohiolib]

73. 'traditional Democratic Party principles' which are?

[Scuba]

84. Well, they don't include chained-CPI, that's for sure.

But you might recall things like support for unions and voting rights, minimum wage increases, expanding and enriching Social Security, Medicare-for-All, progressive taxation and Peace. The Third Way corpo-Dems have abandoned all of these.

[leftyohiolib]

86. of those which are immune from tampering by the scotus

we saw unions just got whacked by scotus, voting rights also nearly eliminated by scotus. are the others immune from weakening by scotus?

[Scuba]

91. Do you disagree that these are traditional Democratic Party principles? Do you disagree ...

... that corpo-Dems have abandoned these principles?

Why the diversion vis a vis "SCOTUS immunity"?

[leftyohiolib]

92. no and i dont know but those are important to me but

of those which are immune from tampering by the scotus. which of those can scotus not water down or destroy

[Enthusiast]

117. Plus one a whole bunch.

[Scuba]

118. Abandoning our principles in favor of corporate donations is killing the Democratic Party.

[Enthusiast]

120. +1. Truer words were never spoken.

[leftyohiolib]

5. i have been saying this anytime i get the chance SCOTUS is the most important issue

all other considerations are secondary

[Fred Sanders]

6. I have been posting and commenting, not here, for 6 years that the whole tea party idiocy based

on the unholy but not uncommon wedding of religion and money would be decided by men in black robes in the end.

Pease see Thailand for a lesson on how that works in modern times.

[vanlassie]

7. I never appreciate the "calm down" comment

especially when it involves real lives.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Lots easier to say "calm down" when one doesn't have a uterus or is a union member.

[JTFrog]

10. Fuck that noise.

We will not sit down and shut up.

You haven't begun to see hair on fire outrage yet. "a little more concerning"? Are you fucking kidding me? We should all be "unhinged" at this point.

The smoke has cleared and we are fucking pissed. Deal with it.

[LondonReign2]

13. Oh good, another "Democrat" that

thinks constantly moving rightward is nothing to concern our little selves over.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Fred, your posts always strike me as not just conservative but also religious in nature

Are you Pro Choice?
Are you Pro Union?
Do you support LGBT full equality?

[Fred Sanders]

18. Religious in nature? How ever you get that, it made me laugh!

[Bluenorthwest]

24. I note that you failed to answer any of three very simple yes or no questions

It's the refusal to answer direct questions and the conservative views that suggest a view based on dogma. .

[Fred Sanders]

27. Internet inquisitors of personal information are not my thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. And yet you are an internet preacher, using insults and personal invective willy nilly.

If you don't wish to even take a position on the issues this thread is discussing, you might want to A. Not start a thread about it and B. Stop taking so many rhetorical liberties in the way you speak to others, ie if you can not take it, do not dish it out.

[winter is coming]

44. Personal information? Nobody's asking for your phone number.

This is a political discussion board. I don't see why asking about your position on issues is "personal". If you're only here to share recipes, we've got a group for that.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Fred refues to state his positions on the very issues he wants to advise us to remain silent about.

He starts an OP about the SCOTUS decisions and lectures folks for having their opinion, but he will not say what his opinion is.

[tenderfoot]

81. Thank you for calling him out...

very telling behavior for sure!

[Bluenorthwest]

108. I also want those who are in agreement with him to be called out

nt

[Armstead]

19. More hair needs to be lit on fire. The lack of fire on the Dem side is what kills us

I've been paying attention to this shit for 40 years.

In the 1960's and 70's "the left" went too far and was too purist, and thus caused a reaction on "the right" which has fueled everything that has happened since then.

Unfortunately the GOP/Conservative side was smart and kept the "hair on fire" of conservatives over the years, while the Democratic/Liberal side retreated.

They/We let the right drive the overall conversation, and became a combination of timid and corrupt. More unfortunately, on the core issues of Wealth and Power, too many Democrats decided to become as conservative and corrupt as the GOP.

This ultimately led to a schism among "centrists" and "purists" on the leftward side of the spectrum, which obviously continues to this day.

The bright side is that on the right, there is a growing recognition by grassroots wingnuts that they've been conned by the GOP. And thus, the conservative side is now experiencing the same kind of schisms that have long plagued the Democratic side.

But in order for us to take advantage of that, we also need to have our "hair on fire" in a smart way that offers a clear alternative to the Corporate State that both parties have been helping to build.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Only one thing needs to happen, and Obama repeats it until he must be crying himself to sleep.

Get out and vote, you freaky, whinny liberals! Get out and vote, nip this fascism in the bud, it is never that hard, once every two freaking years. Get your ID's. Start an ID payment and assistance fund.

Four hour voting lines? How about four day walks and waiting to maybe get blown up as you wait, and those people still vote and vote with a passion.

Get voting to be a passion.

Can Obama do an EO declaring a national voting day holiday so everyone can not use the excuse of "no time" to vote?

[Armstead]

25. I don't disagree with the importance of that , but it is much bigger than that

You're falsly beating up liberals/progressives for not voting, and thus scapegoating them for something much larger.

People in "the middle" or those "swing voters" need to be given a reason to vote, and to vote Democratic. Many of those people are just fed up with both the Crazy CONservatism on the riht and the "more of the same" mush from the Democratic Party.

President Obama is a genius when it comes to explaining the stakes in clear terms. Like President Clinton, he is brilliant at fiing up people with a progressive populist message when he chooses to.

Unfortunately, both of them, and too many other Democrats are inconsistent. They backtrack and kiss the ass of Wall St. and Big Corporations, and in both policies and words undermine what they profess to believe in their better moments.

And that is symptomatic of too many other Democrats.

And politics becomes small and petty, which gives so many people without a strng ideological center a feeling of "Why bother? They'll all the same and there's nothing I can do about it" when it comes to taking the time to get involved.

To his credit -- President Obama's hair seems to be heating up, at lest in his rhetoric. More of that from all Democratic politicians and "strategists" would be helpful IMO.

[Armstead]

50. "Get voting to be a passion"

I agree. But a big part of that is setting people's hair on fire over the actual stakes and issues involved.

If Democrats don't draw clear lines between the principles and benefits of populist liberalism and the phony baloney of the CONservatives, not enough people in the mushy middle will get "fired up" (to borrow a phrase from President Obama himself) to ake the effort and then choose D over R

[IronGate]

26. OMG, you and I agree 100% on this,

but you put it much more eloquently than me.
Thanks.

[redqueen]

48. welcome to DU

[IronGate]

54. Thank you.

Been here for a while now, but not posting much due to work, but I've taken all my vacation and comp time to take 2 1/2 months off and spend quality time with my family and catch up on my posting.

[leftyohiolib]

88. welcoming is nice but just so you know he's a right-wing troll

just an fyi in case you care

[RadicalGeek]

29. It may not be as unhinged

But all of the ruling are consistent, IMO, with the trend towards corporations being seen as people and women as little more than breeding stock.

We need to tap these rulings to remind people that elections do matter and get pro-women, pro-worker candidates elected.

[ljm2002]

32. What nonsense...

...seriously.

"So put out the hair on fire and stop acting like the enemy"

Dayum I am so sick of people telling me to shush up and quit worrying about things. You know what? The two decisions affecting women's reproductive rights are not small cases, they are very big cases.

In the case of the clinic safe areas, apparently the justices did not like the fact it was targeted only to birth control clinics and the protesters at those clinics -- even though the state showed there was a particular kind of violence that had occurred in such places -- never mind, said they, protesters' free speech trumps your right not to be harrassed and killed.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the court has deemed that certain birth control methods may be dropped from coverage if a company can show it has a strongly held religious "belief" (as though it is a person) about them. But the court noted that their decision does not extend to other obvious cases. What if a company is privately held by a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses? Why should they have to cover blood transfusions? But the court has pre-emptively waved that away, choosing to draw this case narrowly as applying ONLY to women's reproductive rights, because they know damned well that if their reasoning was extended logically, a lot more companies could decline to cover a lot more things that would not affect ONLY women.

As long as they can limit decisions like these to wimmin-type stuff, they know they're on firm ground: the rights of women are more, shall we say, malleable than the rights of men. So I will proudly run around with my hair on fire concerning these decisions, thank yew very much.

[Fred Sanders]

38. I do not mean to offend. It turns out that internet chatting has that affect, I just call it like I

see it. Maybe I see not too good. I am open to correction and counterpoint, and you do make a good point. Passion, yes, unhinge go no, is all I am trying, miserably it seems, to communicate.

[ljm2002]

43. No offense taken...

...we just fundamentally disagree on whether these recent SC decisions are "hair-on-fire"-worthy. I say yes, you say no, I think you are utterly and horribly wrong.

Utterly, because you fail to notice that this is exactly the agenda that has been spelled out by the loony right wing religious wackos for lo, these many years: twist free speech until it protects the shouters and the harassers and does not protect women when they seek legally protected medical care; twist freedom of religion until it means we don't have to follow your stupid laws, not if we have some religious belief that affects ONLY women, that is...

Horribly, because this attitude of complacency is exactly why we are where we are today: because we did not resist their little steps here and there, because we kept agreeing that women's reproductive rights are up for debate; because in our willingness to hear the other side, we have enabled the religious nut cases to dictate policy to our hopelessly compromised elected representatives; because even our most "liberal" brethren will counsel us to not worry our pretty little heads, it's not such a big deal after all... and now hear we are, sliding down the courthouse steps on our butts while the PTB blast us with fire hoses.

Ptfooey. I'll go with hair-on-fire, thanks.

[countryjake]

93. Very well said!

Thank you for that and I think that you should post more often.

[Armstead]

72. Using words like unhinged and "hair on fire" don't help communications

My hair has been on fire since 1979 or so (not perpetually. I do focus on the rest of life too.)

Politically, my hair has been very combustible, as I've seen Republicans attack everything I believe in.

That's to be expected. But what really has set my hair on fire is seeing Democrat leadership repeatedly ignore the core issues and/or assist the GOP and Wall St. and the Corporate Oligarchs in the con-job that it is necessary to ruin the economy and political system for the majority, to benefit the rich and powerful.

That kind of hair on fire-ness needs to be more widespread, not tamped down yet again.

Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Please post a paragrahp describing your personal views on a woman's right to reproductive choice.

Thank you in advance for your eloquence! Without knowledge of your own views on the issues, it is impossible to give proper context to the 'advice' you hand out in such charming verbiage.

[Fred Sanders]

40. Gotta go. World Cup preview on.

[Fred Sanders]

100. USA, what a game! And Switzerland, Argentina, what a beautiful game.

[redqueen]

45. Women's equal right to healthcare coverage is nowhere near as important as men talking about sports!

The game starts in six short hours! Priorities!

[Bluenorthwest]

49. This poster is advising silence about the SCOTUS decisions so I asked if he is Pro Choice

he won't say. He's the Toonces the Cat of evasion, he can evade an argument just not very well.

[TheKentuckian]

67. That isn't about priorities, it is about ducking and dodging for the purposes of intellectually

dishonest debate.

Very common but absolved by saying one's Hail Obamas and Hillary full of graces.

Quite often "where do you stand?" is answered with hemming, hawing, and personal fealty to politicians.

[yallerdawg]

41. The conservatives are chipping away at our individual rights.

Isn't our simplest Democratic core value the expansion of individual rights and the regulation of business to serve the greater good (not just anything goes profit)?

This isn't the usual "what if" paranoia like drones are coming after us, the NSA is following me, and the police are monitoring my keystrokes.

If we don't express outrage now, when our rights actually are being restricted by our government, where do we draw the line?

[redqueen]

42. Dumbest post of the day.

It's still early but this is a sure fire winner.

[theHandpuppet]

47. Unless Fred decides to grace us with another thread...

... I'd say your nomination will hold up.

[Arugula Latte]

76. I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what issue Fred will allow us wimminfolk to have

one of our hysterical hissyfits over.

[bowens43]

51. so basically , you don't understand the decisions or the ramifications. Why not just say so?

[JEB]

55. It is my sincere religious belief

that a necklace should be made of the testicles from the Supreme court.

[stage left]

60. Your response to the questions asked of you

Is the very same response I get when I ask questions of Conservatives; they run off and hide. There is nothing personal about those questions. The answers to them would clarify where you stand on the issues you're attempting to school the rest of us in and why you support that stance. I'm in general a very private person and I have no problem at all answering them.

Are you pro choice? Absolutely.
Are you pro union? You bet!
Do you favor complete LGBT equality? Yes

See? It's easy.

[MohRokTah]

62. In a word, NO. eom

[quinnox]

65. In these cases, yup. But that is par for the course at Du. There is always a contingent that has

basically proclaimed the death of America with some Supreme Court decisions.

Best to ignore the rantings, IMHO.

[bettyellen]

80. Wrong it's only four types- and wrong to make excuses for it- IF you are a Dem. Cannot belive I am

reading this here.

[tenderfoot]

82. alrighty...

[KamaAina]

85. Who is the lefty equivalent of Cliven Bundy?

[Marrah_G]

89. It's not your rights that are infringed on...so it's no big deal.

That is what you post boils down to.

[ohheckyeah]

90. It's bad enough getting the smart

ass "hair on fire" "hysterical" and other insults from rightwingers, do we really need to get the same crap here?

My hair isn't on fire, I'm not hysterical, I'm fucking pissed off. If that offends you, maybe it's you that has a problem.

[Phentex]

95. ...

[ohheckyeah]

96. Psssst....

this IS DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[H2O Man]

98. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair!

[MFrohike]

101. If you want to change the court

There are two avenues that should be pursued:

1. Impeachment and removal. It's over 200 years since the last justice was removed. Honestly, semi-regular impeachment should be a fact of life in a democracy. It's simply unthinkable that nobody has merited it in 200 years. This may be viewed as unrealistic, which makes me chuckle. If you continue to make justices unaccountable, they will continue to provide reasons for anger.

2. Give up on policymaking through the courts. Build the case on the ground and campaign for it, both through representatives and plebiscites. Let them have the courts, they seem happy to have them. Too bad they've forgotten how easy it was for them to campaign on "activist judges."

[valerief]

102. What's with all these people mistyping words to make a liberal site look stupid?

Buh-bye forever!

[Cha]

110. Et tu, Fred? smh

[Hissyspit]

111. It is kind of funny to watch people Tweet @SCOTUSBlog

thinking they are Tweeting the Supreme Court. But what Limpballs fails to mention because, well, he's dishonest, is that right-wingers do it, too, possibly more often.

[Enthusiast]

119. Completely unrecommended.

[freshwest]

121. FACTS from the ACLU to be disturbed by... Many very detailed cases at the link:

Using Religion to Discriminate

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

* Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;

* Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

* Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

* Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

* Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.*

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

LEARN MORE. Go to the link to see the case that are involved and the principles being violated:

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

And you are neglecting what Ginsburg found disturbing, that the ruling means that corporations do not have to follow US law. This is noot just about those 'wimmenz.'

[PowerToThePeople]

123. Are you a Republican?

Just asking.

[randys1]

124. Wow, with friends like you...

[Fred Sanders]

125. A little late to the piling on, there are more recent threads.

[randys1]

126. I know, but wow man...never mind, i wouldnt know where to start

[onecaliberal]

127. Let me get this straight

Women shouldn't be outraged that they can't get needed medication as part of the insurance they already pay for because you, as a male who will never need that medication says so. This right here is what sets my mother fucking fair on fire. If you're not a women shut the fuck up about it's no big deal. After they take your dick pills away come talk about it.

[Rex]

132. We do seem to have a few men here making all kinds of excuses for a RWing leaning court.

One can only guess as to why...

[Rex]

131. Foxnews appreciates you doing their job for them!

The three ruling are horrible and deserve all the outcry they are causing, maybe you just don't care enough - but you sure do care about people rightfully being mad about the outcome...how funny.

No need to fire away, you posted clear flamebait in hopes of a fight with people that are justified in their outrage.

With you this is just SSDD.

[theHandpuppet]

139. Yeah, no kidding

Pretty pathetic but obviously there's at least one person around who's getting his jollies.