Well, maybe I should really just shut up about Michigan, because I honestly don’t know how the state of affairs is there, regarding the epidemic. Where I live the situation has thankfully improved so far, that talking about relaxations is not out of order - but that may not translate well to other places. So I’ll just see myself out. Thanks for the constructive criticism.
1 Like
Then prepare to be labeled by well-intentioned folks as the same kind of asshole as the white supremacist terrorists, because jumping in to support them is supporting them whether you’re doing so out of what you perceive to be a noble cause or not.
Jeffrey Dahmer doesn’t get a pass if he was a good cook.
11 Likes
6 Likes
You Americans, no appreciation of the culinary arts. Why, in Europe…
9 Likes
I’m not “supporting them”, I resent that… - I’m simply trying to salvage something they hijacked. Civil rights should be our issue, not theirs. Protesting authority should be our issue, not theirs. Worrying how people will live after this pandemic should be our issue, not theirs. And I think that by just focusing on a peep show of oh how hilariously deplorable they are, some of these issues get tainted, or thrown under the bus, along with those people who hijacked them.
3 Likes
I can say locally that the commemoration was already looking to be a contentious event. The university, which initially tried to stifle commemorations, took over from the student group that has been handling it for decades and was aiming for a less overtly political event. They even named a former CIA figure to lead the memorial. https://www.kent.edu/jmc/profile/stephanie-d-smith
4 Likes
Feel free to resent it, but it’s true. You can’t add “but they do have a point…” and not get called out on it.
Quite to the contrary, demonstrating that peaceful protest can be done without intimidation and racism and endangering others is the best way to protect those rights to protest. Legitimizing these spoiled white supremacists, even a tiny bit, harms both the message and the methods.
ETA: and part of the reason I’m calling out the hypocrisy of what you’re writing in this thread is that, time and again, peaceful protests by POC in recent years have met violent and aggressive attacks by the authorities. Where was your defense of Black Lives Matters, when both the message and methods were legitimate? Because, by not cracking down on these white supremacist “protesters” the authorities are once again showing that it’s not the method of protest, it’s the color of your skin that’s going to get you arrested and beaten.
14 Likes
Not exactly. “ Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to raise and support Armies …” and “to provide and maintain a Navy.”
Additionally- the Constitution put the control of state militias under the President.
Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
8 Likes
This bears reposting:
And before any contrary nitpickers get themselves all excited, yes there were cops at the incident in MI… cops who arrested no one.
21 Likes
The blur doesn’t make it stop flashing on my browser.
2 Likes
In the decision, the court’s right-wing majority chose to shit on one of the most conservative legal principles undergirding our system of jurisprudence - stare decisis - to validate a contrarian, ideological-motivated preference.
Stare decisis, for those who may not know, is Latin for “let the decision stand” which in practice is the function of precedent. Also known as the principle of settled law, it would be hard if not impossible to identify a more conservative mechanism guiding the process of judicial review. Never-the-less, todays conservatives are extreme to such an extent that they’ll abandon all principles and even the appearance of logical consistency to validate their out-of-bounds, anti-American biases - even if the results of their actions cause measureable and otherwise avoidable increase in harm to Americans everywhere.
8 Likes
Yup, that is the best way to describe pretty much any Scalia penned decision. He had a specific conservative goal in mind and scrambles for the method of justifying it. Which is why he was the most intellectually dishonest Justice we had.
4 Likes
Exactly.
And its important to remember, which I think you might, Scalia was the compromise candidate the Senate nominated after bouncing the even more radical Bobby Bork.
4 Likes
One more thought on the subject.
The ghouls row of conservative SCOTUS justices are the worst possible combination of Bork & Scalia - w/a healthy dollop of Thomas on top.
Said differently, they’re as audaciously radical as Bork, as as violently disregarding of consistancy as Scalia but even more of a “box-of-rocks” than is Thomas.
All that, plus demonstrably violent when interacting with women.
5 Likes
Thanks for the heads up. Deleting it now.
4 Likes
You’re doing them too much honor, that would be pretty rad.
1 Like
Oh wow I didn’t know that. I remember going to several of them as a kid and that the administration was always trying to minimize.
1 Like
I appreciate your thoughtfulness here.
5 Likes
The key bits there are “when called into the actual Service”, combined with “Congress shall have the power”. Originally, there was not supposed to be a federal standing army, and it was only supposed to be assembled upon need (from the state militias), when the Congress said it was needed (declaration of war) Keeping in mind that at the time, the Senate was appointed by the states, rather than elected, so in that sense were direct representatives of the state governments at the time), So, it was about the states always keeping their own [well regulated] militias, which, upon dire need, could be called upon by Congress to join up as a combined fighting force for the US – which implied agreement from the states (via the state representatives in congress) to do so. Granted, it didn’t take long for the Fed to have a permanent army, but that wasn’t the bill of goods the States had been sold on when they originally ratified it.
In any case, none of the yahoos in Michigan are in the Michigan state militia, so the 2nd amendment was not intended to apply to their sorts of actions when it was written. It was suppose to guarantee that the states keep the bulk of military power to prevent the Fed from usurping the State prerogatives. It was not intended as a carte-blanche permission for outside agitators to rile up armed anti-democratic rebellions against the elected state governments like the Michigan terrorists are doing.
2 Likes
