Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

64% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade But there are 6 human beings, who didn’t win elections, who are serving life terms, who don’t care about what we want 5 of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote Our system is so fucking stupid

64% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade But there are 6 human beings, who didn’t win elections, who are serving *life terms*, who don’t care about what we want 5 of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote Our system is so fucking stupid

JustinBonomo

Posted 3 years, 8 months ago (Source)

64% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade But there are 6 human beings, who didn’t win elections, who are serving *life terms*, who don’t care about what we want 5 of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote Our system is so fucking stupid

tommartell

Posted 3 years, 8 months ago (Source)

@JustinBonomo At the risk of violating what we were just discussing in that other thread 😀... it really isn't SCOTUS job to care about what we want. That is what we have a legislature for (theoretically). And it isn't their fault that the rest of our gov't is totally fucked.

tommartell

Posted 3 years, 8 months ago (Source)

@JustinBonomo If something is supported by 60%+ of the people, in theory, it should be easy to get it enacted. Obviously it won't be because our two party system is dysfunctional and cares little about governing. I want SCOTUS to bail us out because I'm desperate, but it's a stretch.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 3 years, 8 months ago (Source)

@tommartell @JustinBonomo Yeah, trying to think logically about the situation, and remove my emotion from it, this argument holds water to me. SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, only interpret them. If the laws are unclear enough that SCOTUS is deciding things, the ideal solution is to change the laws.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 3 years, 8 months ago (Source)

@tommartell @JustinBonomo Of course, with past SCOTUS decisions functioning as de facto laws, there hasn't been enough support/urgency to get the laws actually clearly changed. Maybe one good outcome of this is that it can be a catalyst for actually making the up-to-date laws.

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
64% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade

But there are 6 human beings, who didn’t win elections, who are serving *life terms*, who don’t care about what we want

5 of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote

Our system is so fucking stupid (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540389361711140864">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@JustinBonomo At the risk of violating what we were just discussing in that other thread 😀... it really isn't SCOTUS job to care about what we want. That is what we have a legislature for (theoretically). And it isn't their fault that the rest of our gov't is totally fucked. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541185662937726977">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@JustinBonomo If something is supported by 60%+ of the people, in theory, it should be easy to get it enacted. Obviously it won't be because our two party system is dysfunctional and cares little about governing. I want SCOTUS to bail us out because I'm desperate, but it's a stretch. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541186392188788737">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@tommartell @JustinBonomo Yeah, trying to think logically about the situation, and remove my emotion from it, this argument holds water to me. SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, only interpret them. If the laws are unclear enough that SCOTUS is deciding things, the ideal solution is to change the laws. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541188504868098048">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@tommartell @JustinBonomo Of course, with past SCOTUS decisions functioning as de facto laws, there hasn't been enough support/urgency to get the laws actually clearly changed. Maybe one good outcome of this is that it can be a catalyst for actually making the up-to-date laws. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541189393917956098">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

64% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade

But there are 6 human beings, who didn’t win elections, who are serving *life terms*, who don’t care about what we want

5 of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote

Our system is so fucking stupid

@JustinBonomo At the risk of violating what we were just discussing in that other thread 😀... it really isn't SCOTUS job to care about what we want. That is what we have a legislature for (theoretically). And it isn't their fault that the rest of our gov't is totally fucked.

@JustinBonomo If something is supported by 60%+ of the people, in theory, it should be easy to get it enacted. Obviously it won't be because our two party system is dysfunctional and cares little about governing. I want SCOTUS to bail us out because I'm desperate, but it's a stretch.

@tommartell @JustinBonomo Yeah, trying to think logically about the situation, and remove my emotion from it, this argument holds water to me. SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, only interpret them. If the laws are unclear enough that SCOTUS is deciding things, the ideal solution is to change the laws. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541188504868098048">Source</a>)

@tommartell @JustinBonomo Of course, with past SCOTUS decisions functioning as de facto laws, there hasn't been enough support/urgency to get the laws actually clearly changed. Maybe one good outcome of this is that it can be a catalyst for actually making the up-to-date laws. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541189393917956098">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>