#obergefell is very very likely completely safe

[bcofl0ve]

While there is a bit of political talk on your blog right now, what are your thoughts on the electoral college vs the popular vote. Personally, I am definitely for the popular vote. Would love to hear your take.

i mean he won the popular vote this time so in this case it doesn't even matter *hits head on wall*. i think the electoral college serves a purpose and i understand why it was established. but it *is* confusing as all get out and esp for new voters/voters that dont have political science degrees etc i wish politicians were better at explaining it. its not going away short of hell freezing over, so voter education is a more productive use of time than just saying abolish abolish abolish.

i know this isn't a politics blog but- i have a poli sci degree and am currently in law school. i'm happy to answer questions to the extent that i can so feel free to ask away. if you don't want it on your dash ill tag everything with #us elections so you can mute the tag.

[irenespring]

I've been studying political science and history for my entire time in higher education, and involved in politics since before that. From what I've studied, these next few months are very dangerous. My siblings have been all "it couldn't happen here" but yes, yes it could. These kind of things have happened before, including in American history (Andrew Jackson comes to mind).

The so-called institutions we have are not laws of physics. The constitution only governs as long as the people in power say it governs. And right now, the Republican party is making very clear it does not give a single shit about, ironically, American republicanism (which was never very strong in its stated principles to begin with). They want a fascist Christian theocracy. Not saying that for the buzzwords, that is the academic term for what they openly describe.

"But the constitution..." Well, guess what: pretty much every state that was a democracy and became a dictatorship has a constitution. The people in power selectively use and interpret that constitution to justify whatever the fuck they want. There is no invisible hand of democracy protecting the United States from political science and historical trends. So if you think at least Trump can't run again in 2028, there are two problems. First, you assume there will be a 2028 election. There probably will be, but then you're still assuming Trump will obey the constitution, or that anyone will be able to force him to obey the constitution.

"I live in/I'll just move to a blue state..." The United States is a federalist system. The federal government's law is held above state law. This can be good; it's why Obergefell immediately made gay marriage legal in the entire country. But it could also go the other way. For example, if Republicans passed something like DOMA again to ban gay marriage, or passed a nationwide abortion ban, Trump's Supreme Court (the Court that made this decision and is clearly in Trump's camp, not the camp of "American democratic values") can and likely will let those stand. Actually, scratch that, Congress doesn't even need to pass it. Trump could make it an executive order (which are fairly difficult for Congress to undo, even if Congress keeps its powers and if Democrats somehow keep power in Congress while not keeping the Presidency), and his court would also likely uphold that. Which means congratulations! Gay marriage and/or abortion is now banned in your blue state. Ditto for sodomy laws, laws that ban displays of queerness in public, or laws that ban gender-affirming care. If these people have power, nowhere is safe.

I saw that article that jokes about how Biden should assassinate Trump because he can now. It's a joke because Biden would never do that (he prefers to endorse war crimes via proxy). Trump, however, would do that. And now can. So say goodbye to free elections, the President can kill whoever he wants as long as he does it officially. If Supreme Leader Trump has the mercy to let his opponents live, he can do things like have the military intimidate voters, create laws labelling anyone against him a "traitor" and have being a traitor exclude you from jobs or land you in prison. This is what we see in those places where the above tweet applies. The only possible check on this would be the military itself, but when you're relying on the military to go against an elected official to protect democracy you already have a massive problem.

This kind of thing is why I have zero, absolutely zero, patience for people who aren't voting in this election. You want things to go back to "normal" or even improve? The fact is that Democrats have to hold power until they can replace the older justices and until Trump dies. Which means you need to vote, or there might never be an election this free again (so worded because voter restrictions already make me hesitant to label 2024 a completely free election). Yes, a lot of change happens at a local level, so one should absolutely invest in local politics and state-wide politics. But national politics is important because a Trump presidency could usurp that local politics.

Trump and his Republican party are an existential threat to the United States. He's not original, we've seen his kind of leader before, but usually in states that have authoritarian regimes. It should go without saying that a Trump presidency will not help Gaza. Trump recently called for Israel to "finish the job" and calls people "Palestinians" as an insult. There is no Presidential vote this cycle that will truly help Gaza, but one could make it impossible for anyone you elect down the ballot to do anything either, and will doom all the other causes a self-respecting leftist believes in.

I am not trying to say that this will absolutely happen. But this is what history and political science literature supports as a documented path from where we are right now to full-on authoritarianism. I am part of four different groups the Trump presidency would like to see not have any rights any more, or just not exist at all. Right now, I am beginning to look into alternate post-grad paths that would make me an appealing visa candidate in other countries. If you short-sighted, self-righteous assholes vote in Trump by not voting for Biden, I will never forgive you.

Anyway, sorry for the long politics post when people mostly follow me for fun fandom stuff and fanfic. But I saw the above post and a lot of things I've been worrying about came bubbling up and here we are.

Happy 4th of July.

No sane government would do this.

[silver-and-ivory]

I’ve noticed a not unsubstantial number of people reblogging this post about a bill to deprive transgender people of our rights, often without critique. Seebs has provided an explanation of why it’s not as worrying as it initially seems.

I don’t really understand their argument about gender identity versus sex, but I do have separate reasons that I’m not too worried.

First of all, the bill in question is still in subcomittee. It’s vaguely important that you call the representatives listed, but I promise, there will be time before it gets out of subcommittee, if it even does. A lot of bills don’t ever make it out of subcommittee. After that it will go to the House to be voted on. I don’t think it will be approved if it remains in its current form, but even if it does it will go to the Senate after that. There are lots of steps before things become laws and don’t worry too much about this particular bill.

If it’s really as important as all that, major organizations will care about it, even if only because it’s in their interest.

The fact that they haven’t - at least if the tweets are accurate - says more about how important this bill is than about how terf-infested the major organizations are.

Second of all, the legislative branch doesn’t get to control the judicial branch like that. One of the commenters - common to most of the reblogs I’ve seen - references this bit of the sketchily screenshotted bill-

The proper constitutional authority for social transformation belongs to the legislative branch.

and alleges that-

That bit about “belongs to the legislative branch” – if that passes as it stands, it sets precedent to ignore Roe v Wade, to ignore gay marriage, to ignore Brown v Board of Education. Every fucking advance we’ve made in the last sixty years has come through the Supreme Court first.

This is absolute alarmist bullshit, and if the commenter knows half of what they are posturing to know, they’re flat out lying. Or they haven’t laid out their reasoning enough, since it’s completely nonobvious based on my knowledge of the federal government.

The judicial branch has the power of judicial review. This means they get to interpret how the Constitution works. The legislative branch doesn’t get to decide how the Constitution works. The legislative branch doesn’t get to decide how the Constitution works.

Even and especially conservative judges will not accept the infringement on the legislative branch implied here. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about ~social transformation~. Even if it was, it’s the Supreme Court’s power to interpret it.

Also, this person is using fancy language to lie or at least misrepresent. There is no such thing as a law “setting precedent” for judicial decisions. Past judicial decisions won’t be changed based on newer ones unless the Supreme Court rules on a new case. Past judicial decisions are the only thing that set precedent in a relevant way.

But even assuming that somehow the legislature makes it so that the Supreme Court ~can’t make social transformation~, the Supreme Court cases will still be there, based on the Constitution.

Gay marriage was legalized under Obergefell v Hodges. Wiki says (some emphasis mine)-

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jureracial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

DO YOU NOTICE HOW ALL OF THESE REFERENCE THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL FINAL FINAL AUTHORITY ON and which OUR GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON? These decisions are protected and the only thing that can undo them is another Supreme Court case and decision, which is not going to happen.

If the Constitution fails and we no longer have separation of powers and the Supreme Court can’t just murder this bullshit law, then I’d say we have more to worry about than just trans people or minorities. Our government would actually be becoming a dictatorship.

This is a ridiculous, contrived, downright STUPID scenario that will virtually never occur. It is not occurring and you do not have to be afraid it is occurring.

Ahem. Anyway. Quoting next bit because it amused me:

It is *absolutely* deliberate that this is attached to a bill about trans rights, because that gives them the maximum “oh well that doesn’t affect me” safety from progressive activists as well as the maximum “yeah fuck those tr*nnies back to hell” coverage from conservatives. Very few cis people give a shit about trans rights, and a LOT of cis people care a hell of a lot about hurting trans people.

This is where TWEFs kill feminism. You don’t get up in arms against this bill, you lose your birth control, your reproductive freedom, your right to work, everything. But hating trans women is more important.

hon. sorry to break it to you, but those conservative old men don’t know what a terf is. they have zero knowledge of “divisions in progressive alliances”. a gay looks like a trans from where they’re standing.

also, terfs are not that prevalent! they just aren’t! Other queer people and minorities are willing to fight for trans people.

Also do you think they just don’t have any sense of preservation? The NAACP, I’m sure, will be sad they accidentally missed an immense reversal of civil rights just because they didn’t care enough about trans people.

You are safe. This bill is just another piece of bullshit legislation that doesn’t matter yet, and the threat to the Supreme Court doesn’t real.

Be careful not to believe what some rando tells you, especially if it plays into your worst fears.

Our Constitution is strong, our government is strong, and we can get through this awful presidency if we stick together, don’t believe bullshit, and don’t deliberately sensationalize  bullshit.

Thanks.