You Need to Read This
You. Yes, you. I don't care how little (or how much) you know or care about politics. I don't care how much you know or care about the Supreme Court, or the law in general. If you're a citizen of the United States, or you know someone who is, you need to read The Supreme Court: A User's Guide, by Dalia Lithwick of Slate. Why? Ms. Lithwick sums it up:
While the justices cannot bring down gas prices or bring home the troops, their decisions in the coming years will affect just about everything else: your rights regarding privacy, reproduction, speech and religion; how to count your vote and where your kids go to school; as well as your occupational and environmental protections. You name it, they'll decide it. Or they'll decide not to decide it (which may be even worse).You need to know what's happening in the Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary in general. You need to know that the Supreme Court is the only thing standing between you and the total abolition of your civil rights. If the Court abdicates its role of reviewing laws for constitutionality, Congress and the President will have free reign. (Free "reign." Get it?) If they agree that it's okay to start disenfranchising old people who don't have a favorite bible verse and college students who've ever discussed having an abortion, shipping them abroad to be waterboarded with crude oil drilled in your local park, and paying female torturers half as much as male torturers, while tapping the phones of their relatives, nobody will be able to stop them.
I know this sounds alarmist, but sometimes a little bit of alarm is really goddam necessary. This is one of those times.
WHAT ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE?
2 comments:
If you are going to argue a point or attempt a conversation in general, please stay away from slander. It is the least intelligent form of influence, and it makes you seem dim-witted and ignorant. I have no knowledge concerning your personal life, thus this is not a personal attack. I simply would like you to get wise, learn your material, and speak the truth rather than some story you make up as you go. Thanks.
WATI: It's an absurd hypothetical, but it isn't slander. Slander means telling lies about a person, which I haven't done.
More to the point, my hypothetical, however absurd, isn't impossible. The court could theoretically stop invalidating laws if its standard of review was deferential enough.
Also, if you're going to go to war against the ignorant, I'd suggest learning how to spell it first.
Post a Comment