The article has a fantastic line about how Johnsonās views are so out of step, even the majority of the conservative justices on the supreme court donāt champion them. He agrees with Thomas, and Thomas is exceptionally unique in just how insanely conservative he is.
As a fun bonus, the article also has quotes of him praising Trump, if you ever wanted to see the moral bankruptcy of evangelicals laid completely bare to see.
So restrain Mike Johnson?
In a modest way though.
deleted by creator
Kinky! I like it. Is there a leather daddy in the house?
deleted by creator
āPeccadillosā like violating the Ten Commandments?
I guess theyāre just the Ten Suggestions to Mike.
Thomas & Johnson arenāt Conservatives. They are #christofascists. Full stop.
Christofascists are conservatives. Donāt let conservatives off the hook.
Conservatives did this. They are continuing to do this. They will never stop doing this unless they are physically stopped.
ā¦if you ever wanted to see the moral bankruptcy of evangelicals laid completely bare to see.
The scariest part to me is that the moral bankruptcy you describe makes it easy to imagine one of them convincing themselves that God wants them to off Biden and Harris to give us President Johnson. Not that they could succeed, but I canāt help but wonder if someone might try.
deleted by creator
His opinion of what is evil that is. Like universal healthcare and family leave. Evil stuff.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
FromĀ endorsingĀ hard labor prison sentences for abortion providers to supporting theĀ criminalizationĀ of gay sex, his staunchly conservativeĀ rhetoric is rooted in an eraĀ of ābiblicalĀ morality,ā thatĀ he saysĀ was washed away with the counterculture in the 1960s.
āSpeaker Johnson embraces a view that is not only outside of the mainstream but is so radical in terms of his endorsement of the Thomas position, that even the extremely conservative Supreme Court majority isnāt willing to go there,ā said Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a CNN legal analyst.
Johnsonās rhetoric has tapped into a āpersecution complexā for evangelicals as American culture leans increasingly left on social issues, said Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor.
Homosexuality was aĀ frequent topicĀ for Johnson, which he has called āinherently unnaturalā and a ādangerous lifestyle.ā InĀ addition to suggestingĀ he hopesĀ the Supreme Court will reverse its decision allowing same-sex marriage, he alsoĀ wrote in support of Texasā anti-sodomy laws, which said gay men caught having sex could be fined.
On numerous occasions, Johnson also voiced approval for a Louisiana state trigger law ā passed in 2006 ā which banned abortion without exceptions for rape and incest the day Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Following Trumpās 2020 reelection defeat, Johnson played a pivotal role in efforts to overturn the election āĀ urging his colleaguesĀ to sign onto the Texas Attorney Generalās longshot lawsuit aiming to throw out the results in key swing states.
The original article contains 1,835 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 87%. Iām a bot and Iām open source!
āSettled lawā is the political version of āI regret my crimesā. The right say it all they need so they can get back to proving they donāt believe it
For those that donāt follow or read about these things:
Settled law, like Roe? Letās see what some of these justices said about Roe during their confirmation hearings, in order (notice the differences in each new justice confirmation)
Gorsuck Gorsuch:
Gorsuch said that the Roe decision was āprecedent,ā but declined to call it āsuper precedent,ā a loosely defined term indicating a deeply rooted, repeatedly upheld precedent. He also declined to give his opinion on whether he thought the courtās ruling was correct.
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
(he did say a good judge, after all)
Grassley: What about Griswold, which was decided a few years before Roe, the case where the Court found constitutional right to privacy? Can you tell me your views on Griswold?
Gorsuch: Senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old. Griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. And it is 50 years old. The reliance interests are obvious. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed. All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.
Kavanaugh:
During questioning, Kavanaugh avoided answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling. Instead, Kavanaugh repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was āsettled as precedent.ā
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice OāConnor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.
ACB:
Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, āI will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. Iāll follow the law.ā
Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a āsuper precedent,ā at least not according to her definition of it as ācases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.ā
āAnd Iām answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesnāt fall in that category,ā Barrett said. āAnd scholars across the spectrum say that doesnāt mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that itās not a case that everyone has accepted and doesnāt call for its overruling.ā
So naturally, it was untouched right?
The court voted 5-4, largely along party lines, to overturn Roe and 6-3, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Womenās Health Organization, which involved Mississippiās ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Itās almost like theyāre all fucking liars who only act in bad faith
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
