All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Vakanai]

Too many guns for one.

Yeah, but we've had too many guns for a century now - there's definitely a palpable degree of crazed anger and threat and hate that's fairly new imo. Like a certain subset of people have become more extreme in their anger and that's making them extremely trigger happy.

[AnakinFlair]

I had to read the article hoping for some clues as to what state that was in, and only the photo caption mentions it.

The guy is screwed, and rightfully so. Even in states that recognize Castle Doctrine (which New York doesn't) you typically have to be trying to enter the home, or at least be doing something threatening before opening fire. Where I lived in Plattsburgh we had a case of it show up (this was someone drunkenly trying to force his way into an old couple's home who brandished the shotgun when the guy forced his way through the first door, opening fire when he battered the interior door) - the DA was ordered to prosecute so he charged for 1rst degree murder without consideration of a lesser charge.

I'm curious. Do you know how that case ended?

[JackDaw]

I'm curious. Do you know how that case ended?

Predicting that old couple were acquired. I’m as anti-gun as anyone, but in circumstances described a first degree murder charge was near ridiculous.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

So, just days after a kid was shot in the head for ringing the wrong doorbell, a young woman was shot and killed for... driving up the wrong driveway.

Like Vakanai, I've taken my fair share of wrong turns in unfamiliar neighborhoods and had to double back by turning into someone's driveway. Before, that used to simply embarrass the hell out of me, now I have to worry I might be taking my life in my hands by encountering a lunatic who could shoot me for no other reason than because he felt threatened by my skin color.

Florida Bill Could Allow Doctors To Deny Care To LGBTQ+ Patients
https://gomag.com/article/florida-bi...gbtq-patients/

It's almost like Florida is a different country, I can't believe the state is getting away with all this shit - but the most horrifying thing is that this could be the country's future should god forbid DeSantis ever get the presidency. Hell, it might not even need be DeSantis, any Republican who takes the highest office in the land is pretty guaranteed to want to rip from his playbook. Even a re-elected Trump might mean this shot becomes nationwide because you know the GOP will try and get bills like this passed through for him to sign into federal law. I just pray Florida's present isn't indicative of our country's future.

It's like I've said before, the Qpublican party is taking full advantage of the last marginalized group in this country that's safe for them to attack without fear of retribution, unlike with people of color. The GQP is hellbent on not only legislating the LGBTQ+ community back into the closet, but out of existence altogether, and they're not going to stop until they've realized their sick and twisted dream.

[Deathstroke]

Florida Bill Could Allow Doctors To Deny Care To LGBTQ+ Patients
https://gomag.com/article/florida-bi...gbtq-patients/

It's almost like Florida is a different country, I can't believe the state is getting away with all this shit - but the most horrifying thing is that this could be the country's future should god forbid DeSantis ever get the presidency. Hell, it might not even need be DeSantis, any Republican who takes the highest office in the land is pretty guaranteed to want to rip from his playbook. Even a re-elected Trump might mean this shot becomes nationwide because you know the GOP will try and get bills like this passed through for him to sign into federal law. I just pray Florida's present isn't indicative of our country's future.

And if this becomes a reality, the AMA should make sure those doctors who do this are stopped from practicing medicine ever again. Fucking florida...

[thwhtGuardian]

I've been thinking a lot about Republican complacency on gun violence in schools lately and I had an idea that I wonder might work. Back in 1943 Life magazine published the following picture to bring home the reality of WWII to it's readers, a first of it's kind photagraph of American servicemen killed in action:

and the editorial that ran alongside it was:

Here lie three Americans.

What shall we say of them? Shall we say that this is a noble sight? Shall we say that this is a fine thing, that they should give their lives for their country?

Or shall we say that this is too horrible to look at?

Why print this picture, anyway, of three American boys dead upon an alien shore? Is it to hurt people? To be morbid?

Those are not the reasons.

The reason is that words are never enough. The eye sees. The mind knows. The heart feels. But the words do not exist to make us see, or know, or feel what it is like, what actually happens. The words are never right.
And so here it is. This is the reality that lies behind the names that come to rest at last on monuments in the leafy squares of busy American towns.

If a newspaper were to do the same with actual images from the aftermath of a school shooting, with the bodies of children littering a school hall would it have the effect that the image of three fallen American soldiers had back in 1943? Would it feel real for Republican voters and politicians? Would there be more than thoughts and prayers?

Or would they say it was a staged photo by crisis actors?

[JackDaw]

Or would they say it was a staged photo by crisis actors?

Sadly a few would say that, we both know that, I think.

But not that many, and I think basically your idea is a good one, it would stir something in many peoples heart, and it might just lead to improvements.

Have any documentaries been made about aftermath of a school shooting, charting the impact on devasted families, impact on injured survivors, etc?

[kidfresh512]

Oklahoma governor calls for resignations after county officials reportedly discussed killing journalists, hanging Black people

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) has called for the McCurtain County sheriff and multiple county officials to resign after leaked audio showed the county leaders discussing killing local reporters and lynching Black people.

Sheriff Kevin Clardy, his investigator Alicia Manning, Commissioners Mark Jennings and Robert Beck, commissioners’ secretary Heather Carter and jail administrator Larry Hendrix were speaking with one other after the March 6 meeting of the county Board of Commissioners, according to the McCurtain Gazette-News.

The FBI is investigating the sheriff and county officials, while Stitt said he is “appalled” and “disheartened” by the comments. “In light of these events, I am calling for the immediate resignation of McCurtain County Sheriff Kevin Clardy, District 2 Commissioner Mark Jennings, investigator Alicia Manning, and jail administer Larry Hendrix,” Stitt said.

Damn woke mob and the lefty media getting these racists in trouble for being racist on the job. Can't even sit back with your county buddies and talk about the good old days anymore without the woke mob coming trying to tell you you are a racist! Should be focusing on banning some books and making sure Drag performers aren't reading books to kids in libraries! That's the real issue of the day. Books!

[Gray Lensman]

I'm curious. Do you know how that case ended?

The couple was acquitted. Most of the people in the area were behind them, as this was a case of someone actually trying to force his way into their home.

Someone at the state level did try to charge them again. As it was obvious that the overcharge by the DA was done in order to deliberately lose, but IIRC the xouplemwas able to successfully argue double jeopardy.

[AnakinFlair]

I've been thinking a lot about Republican complacency on gun violence in schools lately and I had an idea that I wonder might work. Back in 1943 Life magazine published the following picture to bring home the reality of WWII to it's readers, a first of it's kind photagraph of American servicemen killed in action:

and the editorial that ran alongside it was:
If a newspaper were to do the same with actual images from the aftermath of a school shooting, with the bodies of children littering a school hall would it have the effect that the image of three fallen American soldiers had back in 1943? Would it feel real for Republican voters and politicians? Would there be more than thoughts and prayers?

Or would they say it was a staged photo by crisis actors?

Well, first, Qublicans would give thoughts and prayers, then say it was staged, then say if only those kids were armed, this wouldn't have happened.

But as for the picture you posted- what exactly did that do to the American mindset about the war? Americans stayed largely supportive of WWII, which lasted about 2 more years. And then a few years later, we went back to war in Korea. So I fail to see what impact that photo had.

The couple was acquitted. Most of the people in the area were behind them, as this was a case of someone actually trying to force his way into their home.

Someone at the state level did try to charge them again. As it was obvious that the overcharge by the DA was done in order to deliberately lose, but IIRC the xouplemwas able to successfully argue double jeopardy.

Glad to hear that. It's ridiculous that you can be brought up on charges for protecting your own home.

[Malvolio]

Sadly a few would say that, we both know that, I think.

But not that many, and I think basically your idea is a good one, it would stir something in many peoples heart, and it might just lead to improvements.

Have any documentaries been made about aftermath of a school shooting, charting the impact on devasted families, impact on injured survivors, etc?

Michael Moore made Bowling For Columbine. but if course he's just a blowhard so we can't take anything he says seriously, right?

[Mister Mets]

Should people be blamed for the views of a spouse? I’d argue “clearly not”.

Should judges preside over trials where their spouse clearly benefits from one particular outcome of that trial? Again I’d argue “clearly not”. It’s this second line I think Justice Thomas stepped over.

Do you personally think he’s a suitable person to act as a Supreme Court Judge?

Good question.

I'll answer probably.

In order to remove him as a justice, we need a clear sense of standards he's violated. Much of the discussion seems to have a problem frequently ascribed to Trump: the firehose of bullshit. Buried with reasonable concerns are freakouts.

For example, the whole thing about Harlan Crow buying his old house and letting his mom live there seems to be about setting up a Clarence Thomas museum, which I don't doubt given the way the right venerates Clarence Thomas's humble roots. The right really likes Clarence Thomas, similar to how the left felt about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-create-museum

It does seem a lot of the opposition is people who don't like him, and never did, looking for a pretext to remove him.

If this is an important issue, we should have a clear code and more of a conversation about what that code should include. But if we were to do that, it would apply to left-leaning justices, so they don't want to do that. It seems to be more about vibes than facts, where the main thing is that the establishment left doesn't like him. I'm not sure if vibes vs facts, a divide that's typically described in political journalism as a feature of the left, is more of a left VS right thing, or more of an in-group thing, since there's plenty of that all over the political scene.

If he violated the law, he should be removed. If you want to establish new standards for Supreme Court justices going forward, that's also fine. But it seems much of the discussion is more of an excuse to complain about him.

One final point is that his views are quite consistent so it seems unlikely he's changed a vote due to pressure from Crow, his wife or anyone else.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I've been thinking a lot about Republican complacency on gun violence in schools lately and I had an idea that I wonder might work. Back in 1943 Life magazine published the following picture to bring home the reality of WWII to it's readers, a first of it's kind photagraph of American servicemen killed in action:

and the editorial that ran alongside it was:


If a newspaper were to do the same with actual images from the aftermath of a school shooting, with the bodies of children littering a school hall would it have the effect that the image of three fallen American soldiers had back in 1943? Would it feel real for Republican voters and politicians? Would there be more than thoughts and prayers?

Or would they say it was a staged photo by crisis actors?

I think we already know the answer to that, don’t we? Qpublicans as a whole are too far gone to care about the lives lost to gun violence, hell, one of their own, Steve Scalise was nearly killed during the congressional ballpark shooting several years ago, and practically from his hospital bed, he stood strong in his support of the Second Amendment and opposition to any sort of gun control. They can’t be shamed or horrified by looking at pictures of shooting victims, or even looking at the victims themselves, all that matters to them is that the checks from the NRA keep on clearing at the bank, everything else is merely thoughts and prayers.

[JackDaw]

Good question.

I'll answer probably.

In order to remove him as a justice, we need a clear sense of standards he's violated. Much of the discussion seems to have a problem frequently ascribed to Trump: the firehose of bullshit. Buried with reasonable concerns are freakouts.

For example, the whole thing about Harlan Crow buying his old house and letting his mom live there seems to be about setting up a Clarence Thomas museum, which I don't doubt given the way the right venerates Clarence Thomas's humble roots. The right really likes Clarence Thomas, similar to how the left felt about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-create-museum

It does seem a lot of the opposition is people who don't like him, and never did, looking for a pretext to remove him.

If this is an important issue, we should have a clear code and more of a conversation about what that code should include. But if we were to do that, it would apply to left-leaning justices, so they don't want to do that. It seems to be more about vibes than facts, where the main thing is that the establishment left doesn't like him. I'm not sure if vibes vs facts, a divide that's typically described in political journalism as a feature of the left, is more of a left VS right thing, or more of an in-group thing, since there's plenty of that all over the political scene.

If he violated the law, he should be removed. If you want to establish new standards for Supreme Court justices going forward, that's also fine. But it seems much of the discussion is more of an excuse to complain about him.

One final point is that his views are quite consistent so it seems unlikely he's changed a vote due to pressure from Crow, his wife or anyone else.

Blimey is it really setting new standards for Supreme Court judges to expect them to declare gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or to expect them to comply with regulations to declare property sales? (The purported reason for the sale is clearly irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether the sale went through at a true market price or at an inflated price, and why disclosure requirements were not met.)

Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas are not childhood buddies, all these lavish gifts started AFTER Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court.

I’d suggest that any sane person inevitably sees all this as an attempt to influence Clarence Thomas, to buy influence. I’m touched that you believe that Thomas’s integrity is so strong that no amount of money or favours could sway him one iota. But really can’t see any obvious reason to share your confidence in that.

[Dalak]

Blimey is it really setting new standards for Supreme Court judges to expect them to declare gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or to expect them to comply with regulations to declare property sales? (The purported reason for the sale is clearly irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether the sale went through at a true market price or at an inflated price, and why disclosure requirements were not met.)

Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas are not childhood buddies, all these lavish gifts started AFTER Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court.

I’d suggest that any sane person inevitably sees all this as an attempt to influence Clarence Thomas, to buy influence. I’m touched that you believe that Thomas’s integrity is so strong that no amount of money or favours could sway him one iota. But really can’t see any obvious reason to share your confidence in that.

He was also confident this won't come to pass, after he was confident Roe would never be taken down. I'm certain that he's also confident that no one in Florida will be sentenced to death over wearing the wrong set of clothing in public.

In Roe decision, Justice Clarence Thomas invites new legal challenges to contraception and same-sex marriage rights

Fueling already heightened anxieties from women and LGBTQ groups that the end of Roe could be the tip of the iceberg, Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.”

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

Experts told The Texas Tribune that Thomas’ opinion signals an openness from the court to reconsidering other settled legal precedents related to rights the court has ruled are protected by the constitution.

“The Supreme Court’s decision has brought us into a new era where they are taking away rights instead of giving them,” said Rocio Fierro-Pérez, political coordinator for the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for individual liberties. “Abortion access is one of several fundamental rights that’s under attack including our right to vote, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and they’re all intertwined with our right to liberty in which Roe v. Wade was grounded.”

Emily Berman, associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, said Thomas’ opinion sends a strong message.

“He’s saying ‘This opinion doesn’t do it because people haven’t asked us to, but I think people should ask us and we should reconsider this entire area of law,’” Berman said.