Dept. of AAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaa

[kaffy_r]

Supreme Disgust

The next time I hear the phrase "5-4" I am seriously going to start hoping that one or two of the current "five" on the Supreme Court ... aaargh; no. I can't, I can't wish for bad things to happen to someone, not even Scalia, Alito, Roberts, or Thomas - but I can and do wish to slap anyone who suggests that these miserable people have anything but the basest of political motives when they make the majority of their decisions.

And yes, this is about the goddamned Hobby Lobby decision. I can't even bear to look at it, at least not now.

Hey, guys - thanks for reminding me how little you think of women. Oh, and how much you're turned on by sexy, sexy corporations.

You slimy excuses for decent human beings.

Comments

[owlboy]

>>I can't wish for bad things to happen to someone

I can >:C

[kaffy_r]

Today I'm less nice. I can imagine at least some really unpleasant illnesses.

[eve11]

"But it's not all religious freedoms and not for all religions because aside from our own sacred religious ideals, there is some scary religious shit out there!

It's just that we think some corporations who are indistinguishable from their highly conservative Christian owners shouldn't pay for abortions birth control that might every once in a while keep something with less cellular diversity than a slug from attaching to a uterine wall."

Assholes.

[kaffy_r]

Assholes

Ah, right. That was the word I was searching for. Except that assholes, are a necessary part of the human anatomy, and therefore both more useful and more excusable than the people we are using the word to describe.

Gah.

[masakochan.livejournal.com]

Those folks in Supreme Court need to be replaced, and there needs to be an established balance between how many of them are Democrats & Republicans.

[eve11]

There are nine of them, most usually split 5-4 in one direction or the other as regards political ideology. You can't get "fairer"-- the point is that they are not supposed to be beholden to political whim, hence appointment for life. Seems they nearly always vote on party lines anyway though.

[kaffy_r]

One of the problems is that they are appointed for life, or until they choose to retire. And in theory, they aren't supposed to be interpreting law with specifically Democratic or Republican motives in mind.

Although, to be fair to them, the majority that decided this particular case were being either Democratic or Republican, they were bowing to the unholy creature that is the merged Corporatist-Tea Party.

What I mean by that is that socially, they're extreme conservatives, a la the Tea Party. In terms of supporting democratic rights for any actual human beings, they are Corporatists: the rights of business always come before the rights of humans. And when those interests merge, as they did in this case ... well, you see what happens.

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

Fucking disgusting. Every last bit of this...

I am so enraged, I can't even -

OMFG...

*CRIES*

[kaffy_r]

I know. I keep trying to think of things to make the day seem brighter, and to mitigate my rage.

I'm not finding anything, except perhaps the sunshine.

I've donated a few bucks to Planned Parenthood and a progressive political PAC (CREDO). I hope others do. And I hope to god Obama and Congress address the weakness in the already weak-ass ACA to plug this Supreme Court-drilled hole in our rights.

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear...

[kaffy_r]

Yup ... but they don't seem to be listening.

*resists urge to kick a puppy*

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I can.

[kaffy_r]

Oh, I want to. I very much want to. But the most I can do is wish debilitating illness on the four worst of them; you know, the kind where their doctors tell them, "you have to step down, or your medical condition will kill you."

Now that I can get behind.

[time-converges.livejournal.com]

Ugh. Just, ugh. I anticipated their decision, but the reality is worse.

[kaffy_r]

The reality is always worse. And none of these yobs seems to be in ill enough health for their doctors to be telling them to get the fuck off the bench and go fish somewhere. Which I would dearly love to happen to the four that I mentioned. And then I would learn so damned hard on Obama to appoint some decent Justices, and even harder to Harry Reid to ram them through in the Senate. So very, very hard ....

[time-converges.livejournal.com]

Oh, so, so true! The only one likely to retire soon is RBG and I don't want her to leave, ever.

[kaffy_r]

Don't worry; my guess is that they'll have to carry her out on a stretcher, still writing opinions, just the way John Paul Stephens was determined to go.

[davesmusictank.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a load of misogynist nob-heads ruled by the Christian right.

[kaffy_r]

I think I love you.

[flowsoffire.livejournal.com]

*shakes head*

This is just… shameful.

[kaffy_r]

Shameful. Absolutely. This makes the U.S. once again, the laughing stock of the First World justice community.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Typo? You only named four of five. I'm too disgusted to look it up anywhere.

[kaffy_r]

Yeah, I named the four that I consider the worst. Kennedy occasionally sides with Reality, so, although I hold little respect for him, I decided to avoid putting him in the leaky boat with the quadruplet trolls.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

I hope this means Obama's appointees (Klges and Sotomeyer) avoted with the good guys. (Still too disgusted to look up the details.)

[kaffy_r]

Yup; Kagan, Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer voted for, you know, decency and the real world, and actual justice. Bless them.

[jessalrynn.livejournal.com]

I can't even tell you. I've been in a shouting match with locals all day about this, and I refuse to stop, even though I've been handed everything from the Bible to my so-called obvious amorality to account for the fact that this is the worst decision since DRED FREAKING SCOTT!

[kaffy_r]

Oh, I'm so sorry that you're surrounded by people who don't understand the extreme evil of telling a corporation that it can indeed have religious beliefs, and that, sure, it's OK to threaten women's health because of those beliefs.

DRED FREAKING SCOTT!

You know I think I agree with you. The Roberts court (which is really the fucking Scalia court, let's make no bones about it) is the worst threat to actual justice we've seen recently.

[wendymr.livejournal.com]

Even though I was born in Ireland, where abortion is still only available in a very limited fashion (and a 12-year-old girl was almost prosecuted around 15 years ago for travelling to England for an abortion after being raped), I still continue to be utterly horrified on a regular basis by the attacks on women as women in the US, whether it be contraception, abortion, childcare, or just general healthcare. This decision once again prioritises the prejudiced, hypocritical opinions of (no doubt) a small number of white males against the freedoms and rights of women.

And didn't I read somewhere that Hobby Lobby's investments include holdings in companies that manufacture contraceptives?

On another subject, I thought of you while I was reading the Globe and Mail at Halifax International Airport on Saturday, specifically this comment piece on changes to come within CBC:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-cbc-report-is-shall-we-say-unwieldy-in-its-use-of-jargon/article19383562/

[kaffy_r]

Oh this is most definitely a continuance of the attacks by old white guys against all the non-old white guys who have had the temerity to insist on equality, on rights, on democracy, on ... things that old white guys didn't want to give non-old white guys.

I read the piece from the Globe & Mail and wanted to weep, because the CBC used to be wonderful, and because the Conservative government is gleefully presiding over its dismantling, and because everything she writes about, and the report the CBC wrote, reeks of the same flop sweat I smell around my company and echoes with the same bureaucratic lies that my company tells about itself.

And you were at Halifax airport - I'm sorry my brother wasn't there to be a smiling RCMP face while you were there!

Also, I love your icon.

[wendymr.livejournal.com]

It really does feel like one step forward, two steps backwards a lot of the time now - even as we see some progressive changes for some groups (eg gays and lesbians), reactionaries step in and make things worse for some other groups (eg women). It sucks. All I can hope for is that the pendulum will swing the other way soon, particularly as some of these powerful, reactionary old white guys start to disappear.

I knew the Globe piece would resonate with you; as soon as I saw the reference to cellphones, I thought of your own recent experiences, as well as the fact that you would be very familiar with the CBC. It's so depressing to see good-quality news media deteriorate in that way.

Yes, I was in Halifax - we flew in just over a week ago and drove to PEI, and then back to Halifax a couple of days ago to fly home. And do you know, despite having lived in Canada for almost ten years (ten years on July 17th), I still haven't seen a live RCMP officer in dress uniform!

As for the icon, it's made by starry_couture and I know it's free to be appropriated with credit - help yourself!

[kaffy_r]

And do you know, despite having lived in Canada for almost ten years (ten years on July 17th), I still haven't seen a live RCMP officer in dress uniform!

I wish I had a picture of my brother to upload - sadly, he spent a lot of time undercover and deliberately kept pictures of himself off Teh Intarwebz. (Oh, and you mentioned PEI; that was where I took my practical journalism class, lo, these many years ago, and where I had my first newspaper job.)

Thanks - I think I shall take the icon and credit happily!

[pitry.livejournal.com]

Yeah, basically that decision is "corporations have more human rights than women". Fucking unbelievable.

[kaffy_r]

One of the most troublesome things I've heard since this are suggestions that Bader Ginsburg's dissent, by suggesting that Alito's putatively narrow ruling was in fact very broad, may actually backfire. Apparently, after the majority ruled in favor of dismantling a narrow segment of the DOMA last year, Scalia wrote his own blistering dissent, stating that "no, it wasn't a narrow ruling! *gnash of teeth*" - and gleeful lower courts have apparently actually been citing his dissent as they strike down anti-equal marriage laws as unconstitutional. So RBG may wind up doing the same for religious bigots, or at least that's how the argument goes. How awful ....

[tardis-stowaway.livejournal.com]

I can't, I can't wish for bad things to happen to someone, not even Scalia, Alito, Roberts, or Thomas

I am trying really hard to hope that these four experience some sort of religious calling that makes them feel like they need to quit the Court to devote their lives to quiet devotion outside of the public eye and worldly influence. Or perhaps a minor heart attack that causes no lasting damage but causes them to want to change their priorities to focus on family or gardening or whatever rather than constitutional law. Or persistent tinnitus that makes it impossible to concentrate on oral arguments at the court but subsides when they take time off...

[jessalrynn.livejournal.com]

Or their feet get so cold they can't think every time they sit down in the Court. Or they end up having to raise the infant children of their children or grandchildren, and thus have to leave the Court. Or they realize that they accidentally wrote down the wrong thing and meant to say the opposite and resign in shame. Or every time someone talks to them, they sound like Gilbert Godfreed and they have to resign to live in a Monastery...

[kaffy_r]

More things that have made me laugh! Thanks!

[kaffy_r]

You and I think very, very much alike. And thank you so very much for making me smile a little bit.

Especially the line about "lives of quiet devotion." And the one about tinnitus. Heh.

[jessalrynn.livejournal.com]

If they could at least PRETEND they had a legal leg to stand on? I don't understand why the court even accepted to hear this one when they were just going to play right wing rock-paper-scissors with it.

I think the thing that upsets me most is that people honestly think this is a "win" for religious freedom. They don't seem to grasp that giving any company the right to "believe" anything is opening the door to anti-religious discrimination as much as religious discrimination. They're assuming that the next company to pull this little red wagon isn't going to be worshiping Cthulu, and I really don't know why they would dare to assume that.

[kaffy_r]

If they could at least PRETEND they had a legal leg to stand on?

It comes down to incredible arrogance, and that just increases my anger. And all the joy over triumphs for "religious freedom" makes me even more furious, because as far as I can tell, the desire for "religious freedom" means, "my freedom to force you to obey my religion." And yeah, any non-Christian iteration of the Levantine monotheistic religions, or Cthulu. I'd love someone to come up with Cthulu.

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

Hadn't read the comment thread properly or I would have posted this here instead of downthread ;-)

ETA: Or, in a particularly delightful case of petard-hoisting, this one.

[kaffy_r]

Heh. You and supergee both linked to that, and it made me laugh almost as much as it made me cry. Given the situation, I think that's a reasonable ratio.

[clocketpatch]

I don't know what horrifies me more about this: The blatant lying and discrimination, or the stupendous idiocy with which they've opened themselves up to court case by corporations following the religious command of "though shalt not blankityblankblankblank"

D:

[kaffy_r]

I don't know what horrifies me more about this:

The answer is "Yes."

*cries, just a bit*

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

Sharing your rage and frustration from afar. Not much Europeans can do except yell "Taxpayer-funded universal health care!!! FFS!!!!" because honestly, since private corporations should have no say whatsoever in their employees' health decisions, they shouldn't be (directly) funding it either. My taxes go to pay for nuclear missiles and tax breaks for corporations and all sorts of crap I don't like, but I don't get to go to the Supreme Court about it, I get to (try to) vote for parties whose overall programme is nearest to the sort of society I would like my taxes to contribute to.

But since I am preaching to the converted and probably just sounding infuriatingly smug, will shut up now. Women of the US, you have my immense sympathy and I wish that wasn't all I had to offer.

Oh, except, this?

[kaffy_r]

Not much Europeans can do except yell "Taxpayer-funded universal health care!!! FFS!!!!

Canadians, too, although the horrible, horrible Conservative government that has managed to cling to the helm in my home and native land is doing its perverted and horrific best to dismantle what Canada has.

Everything else you say is supremely logical. That would make some on our Supreme Court twitch and break out in hives, obviously.

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

Oh, we have a Conservative government (well, with a supposedly-Liberal Democrat enabling coat-tail, the so-called ConDems) doing everything it can to privatise healthcare in the UK too. It is telling that they do it while insisting "the NHS is safe with us" and other such disingenuous crap - and at least at a local level they get fought tooth and nail...