MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[Valrifell]

Less justified than the Crusades?

At least the crusades had some religious justification

The correct answer was "at least the crusades started with the intent to restore Roman land"

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Well? The problem was the majority of people didn't have an opinion on him. He did well for a third party guy. He lasted longer then were most of the third party guys fade. He was in a downward trend by the time the debates happened. A couple policy gaffes, not knowing basic facts on the Syrian war or not being able to name a foreign leader he admired didn't help.

Was he simply a protest vote?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... y-johnson/

It wasn't a protest vote for me at least, I well and truly wanted a third party (with an actual party structure, not like Ross Perot) to hit the 5% mark to try and become more competitive or at least raise the issue of election reform to more people. It's a damn shame it didn't happen.

Viewing too many Disney movies can get ya thinkin' anything wonderful can happen.

*looks at the Bernie Bros too*

Only horrors.

*looks at Trump's & Bush's Electoral College wins*

One exception to this was TR becoming POTUS. However, the price was McKinley was murdered, which counts as a horror. Oh never mind.

At least the crusades had some religious justification

The correct answer was "at least the crusades started with the intent to restore Roman Holy land"

FTFY.

iirc, Urban II tweeted "God wills it". Unfortunately he left off the rest of God's sentence which was "but just this once".

[Duhon]

It seems Rex Tillerson's gone talked to a House committee about life under Trump, huh. All hush-hush too.

[Duhon]

By the way, speaking of hush-hush, this is what an allegedly "prolife" admin does on the hush-hush: significantly whittling down efforts to determine the effects of pollution and chemical exposure on children's bodies, all for plausible deniability.

After all, what sort of litigation can you bring against an offending corporate giant if there's very little corresponding scientific data?

For more than 20 years, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health have partnered to fund a unique nationwide program studying environmental impacts on children’s health.

No more. The Trump administration is zeroing out the EPA contribution to the program, forcing many of the 13 university-based research centers to curtail their multiyear projects and leaving the NIH to scramble for a rescue plan.

Whatever the NIH comes up with, researchers say, it will be a shadow of the original program. That’s a devastating blow to the cause of children’s health.

Since its origin in 1997, the program has funded groundbreaking research on the effects on children of air pollution, pesticides, secondhand smoke, and chemicals in household and consumer products such as the flame retardants in clothing and upholstery — probing the environment’s role in asthma, children’s neurological development, cancer, and pre-term deliveries and infant mortality.

The federal funding cutback comes at a time when conservative Republicans in several states have stepped up their attacks on abortion rights, portraying their efforts as evidence of their devotion to human life. This weekend, Trump tweeted out the claim that he’s “strongly pro-life” and proclaimed that his administration was promoting “a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life.”

Yet the administration’s move to destroy a research program that aims to safeguard the health of children evokes the old slam that for antiabortion conservatives, life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Research funded by the federal program has provided the scientific underpinning for bans on dangerous chemicals at the federal and state levels, action on air pollution affecting minority neighborhoods, and educational outreach to low-income communities about how to minimize environmental hazards for infants and pregnant women.

“The message we’re hearing is that this administration doesn’t want this research anymore,” says Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at UC San Francisco. Woodruff’s research center at UCSF has received about $7.3 million in grants from the federal program since 2010. The last of the center’s grant funding will run out by the end of this month. “Then we’re done,” she told me.

It’s no stretch to associate the cutbacks with the administration’s solicitude for the chemical industry. Evidence developed at Columbia University that the pesticide chlorpyrifos interferes with children’s neurological development helped establish scientific grounds for a 2015 EPA recommendation for a ban on the chemical for agricultural use (it was banned in 2001 for domestic use).

Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, canceled the federal ban days before it was to go into effect in 2017. “That was a signal that things were changing at EPA,” says Linda McCauley, dean of nursing at Emory University in Atlanta and head of its Center for Children’s Health, the Environment, the Microbiome and Metabolomics, which was established with a grant from the federal program.

California and Hawaii have since imposed statewide bans. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month ordered the EPA to reinstate the ban and to justify any reversal.

There were other signs of change at EPA. In September, the agency placed Ruth A. Etzel, the head of its Office of Children's Health Protection, on leave, with no explanation. There still hasn’t been an explanation. Etzel has said she believes she was removed to keep research into children’s health hazards from reaching the public. "My job is kind of like being the chief lifeguard...looking out for possible hazards to children and trying to prevent them," she told CNN. "And if they don't want the chief lifeguard around, what does that mean for children?"

What makes the administration’s defunding of the children’s health program even more disturbing, researchers say, is that it hasn’t formally announced its cancellation. When asked about its future, “They don’t say ‘yes,’ they don’t say ‘no,’ they don’t say anything,” McCauley says. “But they told us to spend down our money, there won’t be any more.”

Silence, however, is tantamount to cancellation. Renewed funding would require a public announcement and a request for proposals in a process that would take up to a year. “They obviously don’t have any plans to continue,” Woodruff says, “or they would have made an announcement already.”

An EPA spokeswoman says the agency is contributing $1.6 million to the children’s health centers for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30; that’s the last outlay from prior grants. It’s “unable to make any financial commitments” for the future, the agency says, as those would be “subject to future appropriations.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the NIH arm that partnered with the EPA, says it will be unveiling “a new vision” for the program at a public meeting June 5. But Kimberly Gray, the administrator who has overseen the NIEHS’ share of the program, told Nature earlier this month that the institute couldn’t make up the loss of EPA funding on its own.

McCauley says NIEHS has indicated that it may fund only five centers, to be selected via a competition, down from the 13 currently receiving grants— and those at lower levels than previous funding.

The children’s environmental health program ranks as an asterisk in the federal budget. Its grants have totaled $301 million over 20 years, distributed among 25 academic institutions from coast to coast. (The University of California has received about $74 million through its Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco campuses.)

But for those institutions, the grants have been a lifeline.

Emory’s program has followed 600 Georgia families from pregnancy into their children’s formative years. It was the first such program in the deep South, McCauley says. “EPA and NIEHS were very excited about having our center, because it focuses only on African American pregnant women,” she says. The most important component of the program was its outreach to the affected community. “The community was hearing for the very first time about environmental exposures and the potential effects on their babies.” That aspect of the program may not be able to continue without the funding.

At UC Berkeley, researchers have been delving into the potential environmental causes of childhood leukemia with $12 million in grants dating back to 2009. The funding gave the project the stability to sustain that work over that period. The remaining funds will be enough to finish the existing research in the next year, says the project leader, epidemiologist Catherine Metayer. “To lose the support we’ve had is a big blow.”

The program also represented an investment in the future. “These centers play a critical role in introducing students to this field who might not otherwise understand environmental exposures,” McCauley says. “You’re training the next generation of young people to keep carrying the banner and ensure that they care about this.”

Destruction. Disintegration. Dissolution. These are the core principles of the Trump administration. Impeach the pussygrabbing democracy-dismantling malevolently ignorant motherfucker.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

It doesn't matter what he thinks. The electoral college will vote and if he didn't get the most electors he will not be elected. The moment the clock strikes noon on January 20th 2021 the military and Secret Service will no longer take orders from him and he will be forcibly removed from the building for trespassing which can be added to his list of crimes

Suddenly optimistic. Weren't you saying the electoral college would vote for him?

I was going to say suddenly this sounds like 2016 all over again.

If you're tired of wringing your hands saying "this thing won't happen" hoping it won't even while it is happening... doesn't do anything to prevent anything.

You prevent things from happened by doing stuff so that stuff other than what you don't want happening happens... If you cannot do that, tough. scratch your head and figure out a way to make something happen.

That's how Trump got elected, after-all... you may as well use the winning strategy.

BDestruction. Disintegration. Dissolution. These are the core principles of the Trump administration. Impeach the pussygrabbing democracy-dismantling malevolently ignorant motherfucker.

That said... it'll be a cold day in my state when I'll vote for a national Democratic-Socialist president.

[Farnhamia]

By the way, speaking of hush-hush, this is what an allegedly "prolife" admin does on the hush-hush: significantly whittling down efforts to determine the effects of pollution and chemical exposure on children's bodies, all for plausible deniability.

After all, what sort of litigation can you bring against an offending corporate giant if there's very little corresponding scientific data?

For more than 20 years, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health have partnered to fund a unique nationwide program studying environmental impacts on children’s health.

No more. The Trump administration is zeroing out the EPA contribution to the program, forcing many of the 13 university-based research centers to curtail their multiyear projects and leaving the NIH to scramble for a rescue plan.

Whatever the NIH comes up with, researchers say, it will be a shadow of the original program. That’s a devastating blow to the cause of children’s health.

Since its origin in 1997, the program has funded groundbreaking research on the effects on children of air pollution, pesticides, secondhand smoke, and chemicals in household and consumer products such as the flame retardants in clothing and upholstery — probing the environment’s role in asthma, children’s neurological development, cancer, and pre-term deliveries and infant mortality.

The federal funding cutback comes at a time when conservative Republicans in several states have stepped up their attacks on abortion rights, portraying their efforts as evidence of their devotion to human life. This weekend, Trump tweeted out the claim that he’s “strongly pro-life” and proclaimed that his administration was promoting “a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life.”

Yet the administration’s move to destroy a research program that aims to safeguard the health of children evokes the old slam that for antiabortion conservatives, life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Research funded by the federal program has provided the scientific underpinning for bans on dangerous chemicals at the federal and state levels, action on air pollution affecting minority neighborhoods, and educational outreach to low-income communities about how to minimize environmental hazards for infants and pregnant women.

“The message we’re hearing is that this administration doesn’t want this research anymore,” says Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at UC San Francisco. Woodruff’s research center at UCSF has received about $7.3 million in grants from the federal program since 2010. The last of the center’s grant funding will run out by the end of this month. “Then we’re done,” she told me.

It’s no stretch to associate the cutbacks with the administration’s solicitude for the chemical industry. Evidence developed at Columbia University that the pesticide chlorpyrifos interferes with children’s neurological development helped establish scientific grounds for a 2015 EPA recommendation for a ban on the chemical for agricultural use (it was banned in 2001 for domestic use).

Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, canceled the federal ban days before it was to go into effect in 2017. “That was a signal that things were changing at EPA,” says Linda McCauley, dean of nursing at Emory University in Atlanta and head of its Center for Children’s Health, the Environment, the Microbiome and Metabolomics, which was established with a grant from the federal program.

California and Hawaii have since imposed statewide bans. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month ordered the EPA to reinstate the ban and to justify any reversal.

There were other signs of change at EPA. In September, the agency placed Ruth A. Etzel, the head of its Office of Children's Health Protection, on leave, with no explanation. There still hasn’t been an explanation. Etzel has said she believes she was removed to keep research into children’s health hazards from reaching the public. "My job is kind of like being the chief lifeguard...looking out for possible hazards to children and trying to prevent them," she told CNN. "And if they don't want the chief lifeguard around, what does that mean for children?"

What makes the administration’s defunding of the children’s health program even more disturbing, researchers say, is that it hasn’t formally announced its cancellation. When asked about its future, “They don’t say ‘yes,’ they don’t say ‘no,’ they don’t say anything,” McCauley says. “But they told us to spend down our money, there won’t be any more.”

Silence, however, is tantamount to cancellation. Renewed funding would require a public announcement and a request for proposals in a process that would take up to a year. “They obviously don’t have any plans to continue,” Woodruff says, “or they would have made an announcement already.”

An EPA spokeswoman says the agency is contributing $1.6 million to the children’s health centers for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30; that’s the last outlay from prior grants. It’s “unable to make any financial commitments” for the future, the agency says, as those would be “subject to future appropriations.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the NIH arm that partnered with the EPA, says it will be unveiling “a new vision” for the program at a public meeting June 5. But Kimberly Gray, the administrator who has overseen the NIEHS’ share of the program, told Nature earlier this month that the institute couldn’t make up the loss of EPA funding on its own.

McCauley says NIEHS has indicated that it may fund only five centers, to be selected via a competition, down from the 13 currently receiving grants— and those at lower levels than previous funding.

The children’s environmental health program ranks as an asterisk in the federal budget. Its grants have totaled $301 million over 20 years, distributed among 25 academic institutions from coast to coast. (The University of California has received about $74 million through its Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco campuses.)

But for those institutions, the grants have been a lifeline.

Emory’s program has followed 600 Georgia families from pregnancy into their children’s formative years. It was the first such program in the deep South, McCauley says. “EPA and NIEHS were very excited about having our center, because it focuses only on African American pregnant women,” she says. The most important component of the program was its outreach to the affected community. “The community was hearing for the very first time about environmental exposures and the potential effects on their babies.” That aspect of the program may not be able to continue without the funding.

At UC Berkeley, researchers have been delving into the potential environmental causes of childhood leukemia with $12 million in grants dating back to 2009. The funding gave the project the stability to sustain that work over that period. The remaining funds will be enough to finish the existing research in the next year, says the project leader, epidemiologist Catherine Metayer. “To lose the support we’ve had is a big blow.”

The program also represented an investment in the future. “These centers play a critical role in introducing students to this field who might not otherwise understand environmental exposures,” McCauley says. “You’re training the next generation of young people to keep carrying the banner and ensure that they care about this.”

Destruction. Disintegration. Dissolution. These are the core principles of the Trump administration. Impeach the pussygrabbing democracy-dismantling malevolently ignorant motherfucker.

Please try to tone it down a bit, okay? There are Trump supporters here and they might not appreciate that sort language. And please don't argue with me. Be civil or find somewhere else to play.

[Duhon]

Suddenly optimistic. Weren't you saying the electoral college would vote for him?

I was going to say suddenly this sounds like 2016 all over again.

If you're tired of wringing your hands saying "this thing won't happen" hoping it won't even while it is happening... doesn't do anything to prevent anything.

You prevent things from happened by doing stuff so that stuff other than what you don't want happening happens... If you cannot do that, tough. scratch your head and figure out a way to make something happen.

That's how Trump got elected, after-all... you may as well use the winning strategy.

The only winning strategy is to impeach Trump before 2020. Going through the democratic process at this point carries the risk of trumpery beyond 2021; we might as well give up and hope for the apocalypse then.

A Trump truly unbound will be the end. The end.

[Bombadil]

I was going to say suddenly this sounds like 2016 all over again.

If you're tired of wringing your hands saying "this thing won't happen" hoping it won't even while it is happening... doesn't do anything to prevent anything.

You prevent things from happened by doing stuff so that stuff other than what you don't want happening happens... If you cannot do that, tough. scratch your head and figure out a way to make something happen.

That's how Trump got elected, after-all... you may as well use the winning strategy.

The only winning strategy is to impeach Trump before 2020. Going through the democratic process at this point carries the risk of trumpery beyond 2021; we might as well give up and hope for the apocalypse then.

A Trump truly unbound will be the end. The end.

To be honest Trump damage is done already, and there's no reversal. He's swayed the Supreme Court markedly to the right and packed the lower courts to the point states are happy to ban abortion.

[The Rich Port]

It's spooky going back to the Romney/Obama debates and realizing just how exactly like Trump Romney is, and yet somehow the electoral college/the states that busted the election wide open somehow found Trump better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78

Down to the scandals. Both Trump and Romney were recorded saying stupid shit by hidden camera/microphone.

And the fact that Romney is somehow more moderate.

[Nakena]

It's spooky going back to the Romney/Obama debates and realizing just how exactly like Trump Romney, and yet somehow the electoral college/the states that busted the election wide open somehow found Trump better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78

Down to the scandals. Both Trump and Romney were recorded saying stupid shit by hidden camera/microphone.

And the fact that Romney is somehow more moderate.

Romney was a disliked and ridiculed banker. Also Mormon. Nobody sane wanted Mitt Romney style tbh. So they choose a second time Barack Obama despite his hope had been declined.

In 2016 there was an even more disliked democrat candidate and Trump who promised a new dawn to the american people and beyond. People voted for Trump for the same reason as they voted for Obama in the first place.

And that was change.

A very different one.

[Proctopeo]

The only winning strategy is to impeach Trump before 2020. Going through the democratic process at this point carries the risk of trumpery beyond 2021; we might as well give up and hope for the apocalypse then.

A Trump truly unbound will be the end. The end.

To be honest Trump damage is done already, and there's no reversal. He's swayed the Supreme Court markedly to the right and packed the lower courts to the point states are happy to ban abortion.

It was bound to happen eventually, let's be real. Can't just keep firmly left forever, someone's going to make it sway the other way before too long. It's like a pendulum, in a way.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

The only winning strategy is to impeach Trump before 2020. Going through the democratic process at this point carries the risk of trumpery beyond 2021; we might as well give up and hope for the apocalypse then.

A Trump truly unbound will be the end. The end.

To be honest Trump damage is done already, and there's no reversal. He's swayed the Supreme Court markedly to the right and packed the lower courts to the point states are happy to ban abortion.

State level packing hasn't happened yet, tho...

The official republican stance on abortion has been pro-choice since 1963.

There was even a government shutdown over it in 1977 by Carter to remove government funding for abortions in the case of rape or incest.

The second temporary funding agreement expired. The democratic controlled House held firm against the Senate in its effort to ban Medicaid paying for the abortions of victims of statutory rape. A deal was eventually struck [after 34 days] allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases resulting from rape, incest, or in which the mother's health is at risk.

[Zurkerx]

So, there's a drafted memo by the IRS that says it must turn over any tax returns if Congress asks -- unless the President invokes executive privilege

Now this interesting: it basically agrees with Democrats, although it is a draft and it isn't official. But let's assume this is the case, Trump is going to use Executive Privilege in a heartbeat and that will be another battle to wage.

[Kowani]

So, there's a drafted memo by the IRS that says it must turn over any tax returns if Congress asks -- unless the President invokes executive privilege

Now this interesting: it basically agrees with Democrats, although it is a draft and it isn't official. But let's assume this is the case, Trump is going to use Executive Privilege in a heartbeat and that will be another battle to wage.

What exactly does Executive Privilege do anyway?

[Bombadil]

To be honest Trump damage is done already, and there's no reversal. He's swayed the Supreme Court markedly to the right and packed the lower courts to the point states are happy to ban abortion.

State level packing hasn't happened yet, tho...

The official republican stance on abortion has been pro-choice since 1963.

There was even a government shutdown over it in 1977 by Carter to remove government funding for abortions.

The second temporary funding agreement expired. The democratic controlled House held firm against the Senate in its effort to ban Medicaid paying for the abortions of victims of statutory rape. A deal was eventually struck [after 34 days] allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases resulting from rape, incest, or in which the mother's health is at risk.

Back then the majority of the country was pro-choice, that isn't the case now.. and 2016 was a particular bad year given the next administration had a potential 3-4 replacements.

Trump has fixed the courts for a generation against general public opinion in favour of the religious right.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

State level packing hasn't happened yet, tho...

The official republican stance on abortion has been pro-choice since 1963.

There was even a government shutdown over it in 1977 by Carter to remove government funding for abortions.

Back then the majority of the country was pro-choice, that isn't the case now.. and 2016 was a particular bad year given the next administration had a potential 3-4 replacements.

Trump has fixed the courts for a generation against general public opinion in favour of the religious right.

If the majority of the country was pro-choice in 1977, why was the house of representitives [house of commons equiv, for British folk] so pro-life as to ban all abortions except in the case it posed a health-risk to the mother? [and was willing to put a 3 month government shutdown (September to December 1977) to make it so (they failed, obviously)].

I think the right/left spectrum is backwards in our discussion, again.

[Bombadil]

Back then the majority of the country was pro-choice, that isn't the case now.. and 2016 was a particular bad year given the next administration had a potential 3-4 replacements.

Trump has fixed the courts for a generation against general public opinion in favour of the religious right.

If the majority of the country was pro-choice in 1977, why was the house of representitives [house of commons equiv, for British folk] so pro-life as to ban all abortions except in the case it posed a health-risk to the mother? [and was willing to put a 3 month government shutdown (September to December 1977) to make it so (they failed, obviously).

I think the right/left spectrum is backwards in our discussion, again.

I meant pro-life..

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If the majority of the country was pro-choice in 1977, why was the house of representitives [house of commons equiv, for British folk] so pro-life as to ban all abortions except in the case it posed a health-risk to the mother? [and was willing to put a 3 month government shutdown (September to December 1977) to make it so (they failed, obviously).

I think the right/left spectrum is backwards in our discussion, again.

I meant pro-life..

So this means we have constitutionalist-judges that'll uphold Roe v. Wade as constitutional?

Because right-wing is all about letting the individual decide for themselves.

Crafting laws as a form of religious prosocution could be deemed quite unconstitutional.

[Nakena]

I meant pro-life..

So this means we have constitutionalist-judges that'll uphold Roe v. Wade as constitutional?

Given that most are picked from the originalist Federal Society pool, it is not even unlikely.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

So this means we have constitutionalist-judges that'll uphold Roe v. Wade as constitutional?

Given that most are picked from the originalist Federal Society pool, it is not even unlikely.

And thus, all these state-bans on abortion are unconsitutional.

Thanks, Trump.

[Bombadil]

I meant pro-life..

So this means we have constitutionalist-judges that'll uphold Roe v. Wade as constitutional?

Because right-wing is all about letting the individual decide for themselves.

Crafting laws as a form of religious prosocution could be deemed quite unconstitutional.

Not necessarily given they've been overturning precedence already.

In a largely ignored opinion issued on 13 May of this year, Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt, the supreme court overturned its own precedent issued in a 1979 decision. The vote was 5-4 – the majority consisting of Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In his opinion for the majority, Thomas wrote that stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

In a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Breyer not so subtly sounded the alarm for the future of Roe v Wade. He wrote: “It is … dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later court, come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question … Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.”

[Zurkerx]

So, there's a drafted memo by the IRS that says it must turn over any tax returns if Congress asks -- unless the President invokes executive privilege

Now this interesting: it basically agrees with Democrats, although it is a draft and it isn't official. But let's assume this is the case, Trump is going to use Executive Privilege in a heartbeat and that will be another battle to wage.

What exactly does Executive Privilege do anyway?

It's basically a tool by the President to keep certain communications/documents out of the hands of Congress and their subpoenas that may intervene with government functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

It was defined in United States v. Nixon, although it's limits seem to not have been placed yet.

[Nakena]

Given that most are picked from the originalist Federal Society pool, it is not even unlikely.

And thus, all these state-bans on abortion are unconsitutional.

Thanks, Trump.

Maybe. I am not an expert on how Roe v. Wade would be looked upon from an originalist viewpoint.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

So this means we have constitutionalist-judges that'll uphold Roe v. Wade as constitutional?

Because right-wing is all about letting the individual decide for themselves.

Crafting laws as a form of religious prosocution could be deemed quite unconstitutional.

Not necessarily given they've been overturning precedence already.

In a largely ignored opinion issued on 13 May of this year, Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt, the supreme court overturned its own precedent issued in a 1979 decision. The vote was 5-4 – the majority consisting of Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In his opinion for the majority, Thomas wrote that stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

In a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Breyer not so subtly sounded the alarm for the future of Roe v Wade. He wrote: “It is … dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later court, come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question … Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.”

That's California, the USSC historically overturns their crap over 79% of the time since 1909.

Just one more appeal to activate Trey Gowdy.

Heck, their internal turnover-rate of precidents is so terrible they have a hard time keeping track of the precidents they themselves have personally set.

They're the legallese equivilent of crazy shit in Florida.

[Bombadil]

Not necessarily given they've been overturning precedence already.

In a largely ignored opinion issued on 13 May of this year, Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt, the supreme court overturned its own precedent issued in a 1979 decision. The vote was 5-4 – the majority consisting of Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In his opinion for the majority, Thomas wrote that stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

In a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Breyer not so subtly sounded the alarm for the future of Roe v Wade. He wrote: “It is … dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later court, come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question … Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.”

That's California, the USSC historically overturns their crap over 79% of the time since 1909.

Just one more appeal to activate Trey Gowdy.

Heck, their internal turnover-rate of precidents is so terrible they have a hard time keeping track of the precidents they themselves have personally set.

They're the legallese equivilent of crazy shit in Florida.

No, that's the Supreme Court, look at the names.

The vote was 5-4 – the majority consisting of Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.