• GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It feels like overturning Roe vs. Wade in 2022 was a signal flare to lawmakers about what they could legitimately expect to get away with as long as the current SCOTUS judges sit. Since then it seems every few weeks I’m reading about new laws or proposed laws that would push the nation into the past by removing personal freedoms, punishing speech, removing job protections, etc. This is another example - librarians aren’t an existential threat and books should only be banned for really, really good reasons and boys holding hands isn’t one.

    The USA needs a way for the citizens to hold national and state Supreme Court Justices accountable or at least force a review of their decisions. Right now I’m told that the only mechanism is impeachment, which happened once in 1803.

        • soba
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          They’re hinting, satirically I’m sure, at assassination.

          • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah, like I said in my other post about missing the point - I suspected but was hoping for something more legitimate since my knowledge is not nearly exhaustive. Once you start employing “alternatives” things can go downhill fast. Imagine the mess if the Jan 6th insurrection had actually been effective in some way for instance.

              • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I know that, but if “might makes right” was suddenly a thing it would be a big mess. My point was we probably don’t want to be bringing assassination/violence into the discussion about checks and balances, even if it comes with a wink, because there are definitely folks who will consider it.

          • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I guess. I understood what might have been said, but I was hoping it was something legitimate that I just didn’t know (which is a lot given I’m a) Canadian and b) not a lawyer/governmental expert). “Other mechanisms” tend to be messy, and once they’re on the table things can go to crap fast.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      It was a very sad day for the rule of law in the United States, celebrated by those who wish to undermine our institutions.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Mack Butler ®, said the bill is necessary to “purify the schools” of “some indoctrination going on,” ABC News reported.

    “[LGBTQ+ discussions and flags are] a component of Marxism where we’re – you know – destroying the family and teaching some of these things. Let it happen somewhere else other than our schools.” Butler said.

    I thought being scared and calling everything you didn’t like “communism” went out of style in the 1980s. Apparently not in Alabama.

  • jagungal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ok, surely this is a violation of the first amendment. This is clearly the government restricting speech. Wait, nope. It’s the government ensuring its employees don’t promote speech it doesn’t like. Fuck.