Octopus Overlords

I think he's assuming some sort of Illuminati-level behind the scenes conspiracy.

Zarathud wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:40 pm

Drazzil wrote:

Zarathud wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:54 pm If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

I’ma have to call bullshit on your assertion that there's really a difference between a Republican government in Texas or Florida and a Democratic government in Illinois. Federal level politicians all go to the same events, invest in the same stock plans, move through the same circles and generally, have more in common with each other and represent more their donor class then their constituency.

You're too smart to not realize this, which leads me to believe that you're being disingenuous for the purposes of shitting on me.

I'm done with tolerating this sort of behavior demonstrated here. You can fuck off with that directly.

Stop spewing stupid prejudice bullshit and I’ll treat you differently. Your class envy is showing.

At best, you’re confusing social circles and wealth with politics. Sure they might go to the Congressional baseball game, the same movie theater or the hit play Hamilton. But so do Democrats and Republicans who work together around the country.

But there are many wealthy liberals who won’t invest in the same things as Republicans. So much so it’s called social investing. AOC is not getting invited to the same dinner parties as Paul Gosar. They certainly don’t go to the same fundraisers and parties. Washington is polarized and that’s part of the problem things can’t get done — and why you don’t see compromise laws passed. You’ve got the problem oversimplified and ass backward. Again.

How they would do the job if they had the votes would be completely different, and we’re seeing that play out with the Supreme Court now. You see that clearly with COVID and unemployment benefits in the States.

A person’s character and actions are not defined by what they do or where they work. You’re smart enough to know better.

Do you honestly believe that at the federal level, Republican and Democrat politicians don't have more in common with each other then the people they represent? You don't think that they have back door agreements with each other to block certain bills that they themselves try to run on, promote and or support? I just need a statement for the record councilor.

Drazzil wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:55 pm You don't think that they have back door agreements with each other to block certain bills that they themselves try to run on, promote and or support? I just need a statement for the record councilor.

Not speaking for Zarathud here, but... No, I certainly don't. I can't say that that has never happened, but I don't think that is 'a thing'.

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:31 pm I think he's assuming some sort of Illuminati-level behind the scenes conspiracy.

That's exactly his position.

No, they don’t. I have met and known local and national politicians. Politicians put on their pants one leg at a time trying to make the best of every day like regular people. Biden even has a fuckup son. Like a normal family.

Do they have talking to people all day in common? Yes. Raising money because politics is expensive? Yes. Much like programmers or lawyers have certain things in common too.

There is no conspiracy behind closed doors. Democrats are too disorganized to run a conspiracy. No one has the votes to get things done — and Republicans have no ideas, no willingness to compromise. They wouldn’t agree just to own the libs.

Life might be easy if some Illuminati were oppressing the little guy. Makes for a good story. But it’s a lie. It falls apart if you ask even a few questions.

It’s also part of the problem, and something Republicans are selling so you don’t participate in politics. Because the GOP wins elections as outsiders and when people distrust politicians and government. That’s how you get the status quo, not a conspiracy.

Total tangent, this all made me think of the great Steve Jackson game: Illuminati

anyone else ever play that game. What fun. Drazzil would so love that game.

Unagi wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:34 am Total tangent, this all made me think of the great Steve Jackson game: Illuminati

anyone else ever play that game. What fun. Drazzil would so love that game.

It is a great game. It would almost be cool if it were real - I'd rather have some shadowy cabal to blame/hate than have to deal with our real disfunctions. Grappling with a mass inability to evaluate data, perform critical thinking and the rise of white nationalism (again) is a lot more frustrating than blaming it on the Gnomes of Zurich.

Unagi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:06 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:31 pm I think he's assuming some sort of Illuminati-level behind the scenes conspiracy.

That's exactly his position.

He has to believe this otherwise it means people can make a difference if they work together. That's not a mirror he wants to look in.

stessier wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:39 pm

Unagi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:06 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:31 pm I think he's assuming some sort of Illuminati-level behind the scenes conspiracy.

That's exactly his position.

He has to believe this otherwise it means people can make a difference if they work together. That's not a mirror he wants to look in.

Oof! I believe people can make a difference if they work together. I just don't believe sane people can make a difference *politically* at this point.

Why? The racists think they can change politics. And have.

Drazzil wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:27 pm

stessier wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:39 pm

Unagi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:06 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:31 pm I think he's assuming some sort of Illuminati-level behind the scenes conspiracy.

That's exactly his position.

He has to believe this otherwise it means people can make a difference if they work together. That's not a mirror he wants to look in.

Oof! I believe people can make a difference if they work together. I just don't believe sane people can make a difference *politically* at this point.

You've given up, and your opinion means nothing.

I know people who spend multiple hours every week on campaigns to raise local awareness and get out the vote when elections come around. When the time comes, they spend weekend after weekend on the effort.

And it works. In the past three local election cycles in my purple area, people I know personally (and I've tried to help too, but others did more) put in the hours to absolutely make the difference at the city or state level. They literally changed the composition of the state legislature and judiciary by doing the work.

What have you done besides fantasizing about other people murdering people you don't like?

Holman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:30 pm
I know people who spend multiple hours every week on campaigns to raise local awareness and get out the vote when elections come around. When the time comes, they spend weekend after weekend on the effort.

I know people who organize ride shares for voting and who will pay you a pizza to vote. They'll encourage you to vote their (dyed in blue) way but they don't insist on it. I am shamed by the level of participation some people I know have. Maybe when I hit my post working years, I'll join them, though probably not.

Annnnnnd it's done. The SC has killed a woman's right to choose.

Not yet.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:03 pmNot yet.

Explain please?

Edited for politeness sake.

Well, the obvious point is a woman in Washington or California or many other states can still choose.

In Texas, they left the law in place, but are allowing suits against it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... rt-ruling/

The Supreme Court ruling Friday to allow Texas abortion providers to sue over the state’s ban on most abortions was a narrow win for abortion rights, supporters and opponents said.

Drazzil wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:02 pm Annnnnnd it's done. The SC has killed a woman's right to choose.

I'm curious why that's your take.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:14 pm Well, the obvious point is a woman in Washington or California or many other states can still choose.

In Texas, they left the law in place, but are allowing suits against it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... rt-ruling/

The Supreme Court ruling Friday to allow Texas abortion providers to sue over the state’s ban on most abortions was a narrow win for abortion rights, supporters and opponents said.

Drazzil wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:02 pm Annnnnnd it's done. The SC has killed a woman's right to choose.

I'm curious why that's your take.

Doesen't the law say that a woman cant have an abortion after heartbeat? Which is what? Six weeks? And if the SC says the law can stand, then every state in the south is sure to follow.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:14 pmIn Texas, they left the law in place, but are allowing suits against it.

Finally caught up on this. They are allowing ONE suit to stand. They dismissed the DOJ suit outright and a lawsuit against the AG and clerks in Texas. They sent it back down to the lower courts to play out but Roberts pretty much said in his dissent that they majority just laid down a roadmap to shred the constitution. Roe is clearly the immediate focus but the United States just took one big step towards possible dissolution in some possible future. It was a consequential Friday night and most people don't even know it yet.

If you think I'm exaggerating the peril here is what Roberts said -

"The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

Ironically this is somewhat what Drazzil has talked about in the past. He might be getting his wish - the Supremes may take actions that weaken the holding in Marbury v. Madison. It is setting up a possible disaster and civil war. Does anyone still want to argue that SCOTUS isn't possibly on a trajectory as a politicized radical judicial body? As an aside, Newsom was right to be utterly outraged. And his unfortunate reaction to press on it is a natural escalation in our cold civil war. No matter what SCOTUS seemingly has invited dozens of laws and a burgeoning anti-federal frenzy that might turn the United States into an even more ungovernable legal wasteland with regionalized pockets of law across this nation. It'll be bad for stability, human rights, business, and more.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:14 pmIn Texas, they left the law in place, but are allowing suits against it.

Finally caught up on this. They are allowing ONE suit to stand. They dismissed the DOJ suit outright and a lawsuit against the AG and clerks in Texas. They sent it back down to the lower courts to play out but Roberts pretty much said in his dissent that they majority just laid down a roadmap to shred the constitution. Roe is clearly the immediate focus but the United States just took one big step towards possible dissolution in some possible future. It was a consequential Friday night and most people don't even know it yet.

If you think I'm exaggerating the peril here is what Roberts said -

"The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

Ironically this is somewhat what Drazzil has talked about in the past. He might be getting his wish - the Supremes may take actions that weaken the holding in Marbury v. Madison. It is setting up a possible disaster and civil war. Does anyone still want to argue that SCOTUS isn't possibly on a trajectory as a politicized radical judicial body?

As an aside, Newsom was right to be utterly outraged. And his unfortunate reaction to press on it is a natural escalation in our cold civil war. No matter what happens, SCOTUS seemingly has invited dozens of laws and a burgeoning anti-federal frenzy that might turn the United States into an even more ungovernable legal wasteland with regionalized pockets of law across this nation. It'll be bad for stability, human rights, business, and more.

What I read indicates that the one suit that they left stand is one where the plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to get the remedy that they actually want (which is to shut down the whole method of suing abortion providers into the ground via private suits), right? Something like they may get injunctions against local officials which won't do them any good even if they win.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:42 am What I read indicates that the one suit that they left stand is one where the plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to get the remedy that they actually want (which is to shut down the whole method of suing abortion providers into the ground via private suits), right? Something like they may get injunctions against local officials which won't do them any good even if they win.

That's what I read too. Direct relief on the local injunctions is a waste of time. The things I read said there probably is a path there around the bounty scheme. I read that some lawsplainers think that the District Court has a reasonable chance of ruling during that case that the bounty scheme is unconstitutional in line with Roberts warning. Then it'll go to the 5th where that may or may not be held or overruled. Then it'll probably go to SCOTUS where we'll see how far they are willing to pull the thread on federalism. It's pretty insane how quickly this is unraveling.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:05 am Then it'll probably go to SCOTUS where we'll see how far they are willing to pull the thread on federalism. It's pretty insane how quickly this is unraveling.

IANAL. But I am a guy with a degree in history that concentrated on the colonial and federal eras, and I'm wondering if we aren't on a path that's a practical, if not statutorily legal, return to an Articles of Confederation situation in a sense. I mean, if the USSC is willing to literally ignore federal precedent and allow states to enact blatantly unconstitutional law, the only question remaining is how partisan this will be. That is, outlawing abortion is fine, forcing public funds to be used for religious education is fine. But what about legal bounty hunting with regard to gun owners? If a state can require religious educational funding, can a state BAN religious education? Will the court once and for all abandon it's pretense of MJ as a schedule I substance, and can banks and credit card companies now work with purveyors of MJ in states where it's "legal" without fear of federal intervention?

Somehow, I doubt it, but I will say that the less hypocritical the court is, the more I think eventual violence could be averted. OTOH, if they do what I expect - approving every right wing/religious nullification of federalism while denying lefty states the same opportunity, I see serious problems ahead.

Also, WTF is up with Clarence Thomas? Basically voted to straight up let the TX law overrule guaranteed Constitutional protections with no recourse?

geezer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:53 pmI mean, if the USSC is willing to literally ignore federal precedent and allow states to enact blatantly unconstitutional law, the only question remaining is how partisan this will be.

As Trump discovered, much to his dismay, this court is not particularly interested in partisan bickering. But they do seem to have a very textualist bent to them. Which should mean that as long as you stick to what the Constitution says, you'll probably be fine.

Sadly, I suspect liberals are going to have a harder time weaponizing this than Republicans. I didn't realize that Democrats were now completely against the concept of religious education, but making it illegal to teach religion at all seems like it would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "legal bounty hunting with regard to gun owners," but I see some difficulties there. (Gun manufacturers are already protected from lawsuits by federal law, IIRC, so I'm not sure who we're going to be after.) And it's not the Court that labeled MJ a schedule 1 substance. That's on Congress, and Congress can undo it at any time.

I suspect that this Court will actually be fine with lefty-Federalism, but I'm not sure there's all that much interest in lefty-Federalism from the left.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:05 pm I didn't realize that Democrats were now completely against the concept of religious education, but making it illegal to teach religion at all seems like it would run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

I think Democrats have been, and remain, against using public funds for the concept of religious education. Learn all you want on your own dime.

stessier wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:17 pm

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:05 pm I didn't realize that Democrats were now completely against the concept of religious education, but making it illegal to teach religion at all seems like it would run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

I think Democrats have been, and remain, against using public funds for the concept of religious education. Learn all you want on your own dime.

This. This isn't about wanting to shut down a religious private school. They simply don't want the government paying for it.
"School choice" or charter programs in mostly red states have been trying to get around this too. That's where the fight is mostly right now.

stessier wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:17 pmI think Democrats have been, and remain, against using public funds for the concept of religious education. Learn all you want on your own dime.

I know THAT, but that's not what Geezer said.

If a state can require religious educational funding, can a state BAN religious education?

Saying you can't use public funds for something is one thing. Outright banning it is quite another.

To clarify, I was/am just trying to think of "equal/opposite" examples of things that the bluest states could concoct that would be roughly equivalent to the crazy stuff Texas etc. are doing now, not making actual predictions of what I think CA might do.

geezer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:42 pmTo clarify, I was/am just trying to think of "equal/opposite" examples of things that the bluest states could concoct that would be roughly equivalent to the crazy stuff Texas etc. are doing now, not making actual predictions of what I think CA might do.

Oh I totally get that. And it's a perfectly valid thought experiment. In fact, I would say it's a very useful one.

Let's take vaccine mandates, for instance. The Supreme Court seems ok with states passing their own mandates.

The Supreme Court turned away two emergency requests Monday from health care workers, doctors and nurses in New York to block the state's vaccine mandate.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The dispute arose when three nurses and a group called We the Patriots USA, Inc, challenged the mandate, arguing that it allowed exemptions for those with medical objections but not for people with religious objections.

The rule, which is currently in effect, covers workers in hospitals and nursing homes, home health agencies, adult centers as well as hospices. Several doctors who say they have treated many patients with Covid filed a separate request with the justices.

So far, the justices have allowed state mandates from Indiana, Maine and New York to go forward suggesting a tolerance for state efforts to fight Covid-19 in the midst of a surge of the Delta variant.

That seems like a good example of Lefty-Federalism, and I assume most people here are fine with it.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:07 pmThat seems like a good example of Lefty-Federalism, and I assume most people here are fine with it.

It's not lefty-federalism. It follows what SCOTUS said in 1918 and other times before when it comes to public health. It is just what has been accepted for over a 100 years as known boundaries on federalism. It also doesn't mean they aren't acting radically in other matters - which they absolutely are. Even in this there are 3 dissenters taking a radical viewpoint on this. We believe these 3 if not more take a radical view on Chevron. There is a lot of evidence piling up here that we are about to see some raucous times on the Court.

I'm still waiting to hear what specific religious, deeply held beliefs are stopping these medical staff from vaccinating.

My deeply held religious belief is that I should be able to own a WW2 era BAR, but NJ is telling me I cannot.

F these people. I'm done.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:17 pm I'm still waiting to hear what specific religious, deeply held beliefs are stopping these medical staff from vaccinating.

Right. It also stands to reason that it is totally normal that Supreme Court justices think that vaccine mandates and public health restriction need legions of religious experts researching each one off exemption request. If the state doesn't do such with particular care then they must be assumed to be trampling on their religious rights. It is a totally workable and non-radical viewpoint.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:12 pmIt also doesn't mean they aren't acting radically in other matters - which they absolutely are.

I'm sure we're going to have a very different Court. That much is obvious - the Court is far, FAR more textual than its immediate predecessors. But geezer was asking about whether or not the Court was ok with Federalism in the general sense or was pushing a purely partisan agenda. If all they wanted to do was own the libs, then shooting down these mandates is a no-brainer. But they're letting them stand.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:17 pm I'm still waiting to hear what specific religious, deeply held beliefs are stopping these medical staff from vaccinating.

For some, it's the widespread rumor that the vaccines were developed with (or even contain) aborted fetal tissue.

For others, it's a super-hazy notion that while Christians must obey laws, the body itself is a vessel consecrated to God and that the believer must preserve it from "pollution," yada yada yada. Underpinning this is the no-longer-fringe notion of "spiritual warfare" going on all the time in the world. Some groups have begun to see illness itself as merely a tool of Sauron Satan to weaken the faithful.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:49 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:12 pmIt also doesn't mean they aren't acting radically in other matters - which they absolutely are.

I'm sure we're going to have a very different Court. That much is obvious - the Court is far, FAR more textual than its immediate predecessors.

And that 'textualist' approach seems to be delivering results that largely align with a certain political philosophy.

But geezer was asking about whether or not the Court was ok with Federalism in the general sense or was pushing a purely partisan agenda.

I don't think anyone thinks this is how the partisanship is going to surface itself. It is a bit of an argumentum ab absurdum of what I believe he was intending to say. They aren't comic book villains. None of this will scream partisan at the end of they day. They are way more sophisticated than that but the pattern sure is beginning to look pretty partisan. It isn't hard to see the pattern change happening in real-time. This is a change from even the near past. Roberts was a master of doing what the right wanted but couching it in moderate terms so that they were acting as partisans by inches. Now they are moving much quicker than even some of the most dialed in critics expected.

My long ago prediction was that they'd eventually be tempted to do something that'd completely shatter faith in judicial independence from politics even with a 5-4 court. Robert's actually contained that significantly but he occasionally showed he was tempted. For instance, Roberts did do quite a bit of damage to voting rights and gutted the Voting Right's Amendment which was long hated by the right. Surely a coincidence, right? That also was ultimately a major victory for white nationalism. Now does that mean I think Roberts is secretly a Proud Boy? Hardly but he certainly seemed to put his thumb on the scale for the GOP. More he wrote the opinion gently enough that it didn't seem intentionally partisan - just "accidentally" so.

Fast forward to last term after Barrett was sat and we saw them essentially ignoring stare decisis in several cases. The liberal judges sarcastically called that out over and over. They used the shadow docket to hide the rationale on their most radical works. And what's the status now months into the first full term without a Robert's acting as a decisive moderator? They are essentially signaling that our notion of federalism might be warped into an unworkable, ungovernable patchwork in the United States. That is radical no matter what fancy judicial philosophy someone wants to try to wrap around it. It is becoming increasingly impossible to defend this as a normal court. It is looking very likely that we'll be seeing radical decisions which will put more pressure on a failing system.

Holman wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:04 pm For some, it's the widespread rumor that the vaccines were developed with (or even contain) aborted fetal tissue.

Sure, I've heard that and initially that seems concerning. However I've yet to hear or see the leader/head of a major religious group come out and say their particular followers shouldn't vaccinate. Instead, it's been the opposite - that they have a moral obligation to vaccinate. That's why I want these so-called objectors to be put under a microscope because I don't believe any of them. They have a philosophical or political opposition to it and they're trying to wear a cloak of "religious freedom" to get out of vaccination.

For others, it's a super-hazy notion that while Christians must obey laws, the body itself is a vessel consecrated to God and that the believer must preserve it from "pollution," yada yada yada. Underpinning this is the no-longer-fringe notion of "spiritual warfare" going on all the time in the world. Some groups have begun to see illness itself as merely a tool of Sauron Satan to weaken the faithful.

I'm not going to lie, I am afraid of these people. Like genuinely afraid they're a few steps away from skinning me alive because god told them to.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:24 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:04 pm For some, it's the widespread rumor that the vaccines were developed with (or even contain) aborted fetal tissue.

Sure, I've heard that and initially that seems concerning. However I've yet to hear or see the leader/head of a major religious group come out and say their particular followers shouldn't vaccinate. Instead, it's been the opposite - that they have a moral obligation to vaccinate. That's why I want these so-called objectors to be put under a microscope because I don't believe any of them. They have a philosophical or political opposition to it and they're trying to wear a cloak of "religious freedom" to get out of vaccination.

Yeah, but I assume you're thinking of leaders of mainstream religious denominations. The anti-vaxx stuff is being spearheaded by popular Megachurch pastors with no widespread institutional standing but huge social-media influence. Non-denominational Evangelical churches (or certain of them) in America are where everything dangerous is happening.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:19 pmAnd that 'textualist' approach seems to be delivering results that largely align with a certain political philosophy.

That won't surprise anyone who has a basic grasp of American history. When the framers wrote the Constitution, they envisioned a nation of citizen farmers, not a globe-spanning empire with populations centered in mega-cities.

But here we are.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:33 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:19 pmAnd that 'textualist' approach seems to be delivering results that largely align with a certain political philosophy.

That won't surprise anyone who has a basic grasp of American history. When the framers wrote the Constitution, they envisioned a nation of citizen farmers, not a globe-spanning empire with populations centered in mega-cities.

So let me get this straight, what we are seeing is in line with their principled notions of liberty and public safety? Put aside that ideas about the boundaries of federalism were decided well over a hundred years ago. Largely by the Conservatives of those eras who lived in a time closer to the founding and had people who literally overlapped in life with them. But finally we are now getting it right and it all happens to align with a narrow set of contemporary political issues? How convenient.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:04 pmPut aside that ideas about the boundaries of federalism were decided well over a hundred years ago.

The "boundaries" of federalism are not set in stone, nor is almost anything else regarding the law. Courts interpret all kind of things differently than they did one hundred years ago, and they will no doubt interpret things differently one hundred years from now. One hundred years ago, the most liberal justice on the court would have been aghast at Obergefell v. Hodges, now there's no sign that even an ultra-conservative court is interested in overturning it. Culture changes.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:09 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:04 pmPut aside that ideas about the boundaries of federalism were decided well over a hundred years ago.

The "boundaries" of federalism are not set in stone, nor is almost anything else regarding the law. Courts interpret all kind of things differently than they did one hundred years ago, and they will no doubt interpret things differently one hundred years from now. One hundred years ago, the most liberal justice on the court would have been aghast at Obergefell v. Hodges, now there's no sign that even an ultra-conservative court is interested in overturning it. Culture changes.

Yet we now have a Court explicitly rejecting the idea that culture matters and you seemingly were describing it as some return to the basics!

There's no such thing as "basic" on the Supreme Court. Each Court is its own special animal, with its own quirks and habits. This Court appears to lean heavily towards textualism, although its worth noting that this court is quite young and has lots of room to evolve. Is textualism inherently inferior to pragmatism or structuralism? I know of no way to objectively determine that. Every legal scholar I've ever known has a slightly different spin on that question.