Now Gay Marriages and Contraceptives are being reviewed by scotus

[mrs-b]

So - just to throw this out there.....

I'm a Christian. An evangelical, conservative, fundamentalist Christian.

And I believe utterly in the separation of church and state. I believe the government has -zero- role in anyone's bedroom. And as for abortion - *this* is my current Facebook status message:

"If you are a woman who suddenly finds themselves with a need to go camping, and you live in a state unfriendly towards camping, just know that you can come to my home and I will drive you to a relevant camp site and will not talk about the camping trip to anyone ever."

I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I've been publicly arguing this position with people - Christian and otherwise- for years. I also know many, many Christians who do the same. Religion isn't the problem. Political extremism - masquerading as religion - is the problem.

 

[monarch64]

White babies are in demand—just ask Amy. Wanna see abortion laws reversed? White women only have brown babies. Wanna see gun control laws? Start selling guns only to black people. Boom, “problems” solved.

This isn’t about religion. It’s about white supremacy.

 

[missy]

Religion isn't the problem. Political extremism - masquerading as religion - is the problem.

With all due respect I disagree. It isn't just political extremism...it is religious extremism at play here as well.
They are tied closely together unfortunately.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Just because you and I think a certain way doesn't mean all those who follow a certain religion (any religion) think that way. You are not typical of the religious Christian. The Church is against abortion so those who are religious would be against pro choice as well if one is religious and follows the Church. I mean sure you can pick and choose what you believe but those who are truly religious zealots are against a woman's right to choose because they feel abortion is murder.

You and I do not think that way because our thought processes are based in scientific facts whereas those who are religious do not base their thoughts in facts.

I stand by what I said before. Religion has been a major feature in historical conflicts and terrorism. The religious have murdered throughout history in the name of their g-d.

I do not think all religious people are evil but I also do not think religious people are better than those who are not religious, for example atheists. Far from it in fact. Some of the people I know with the worst behavior are those who claim to be religious. And some of the most kind are those who do not believe in any religion.

Sorry for my long rambling post. I am very disturbed by what is happening in this country and I do blame religion for this one at least in good part.

 

[missy]

White babies are in demand—just ask Amy. Wanna see abortion laws reversed? White women only have brown babies. Wanna see gun control laws? Start selling guns only to black people. Boom, “problems” solved.

This isn’t about religion. It’s about white supremacy.

White supremacy ideas have historical roots in Christianity.
Elements of racist ideology have long been present in white Christianity in the United States.

White American Christianity Needs to Be Honest With Itself

White supremacy, racism and segregation are a cancer running through our major organs

time.com

 

[Gussie]

White babies are in demand—just ask Amy. Wanna see abortion laws reversed? White women only have brown babies. Wanna see gun control laws? Start selling guns only to black people. Boom, “problems” solved.

This isn’t about religion. It’s about white supremacy.

I agree with your assessment that this is rooted in white supremacy but believe it is quite the opposite of white babies being in demand. It is well known that restricting abortion effects underprivileged women of color the most. Controlling them by eliminating choice keeps them in poverty. It is so disgusting I hate to even type it.

ETA the same people restricting abortion rights are holding back any sort of help these women need, further keeping them in poverty and ensuring a cheap labor force. They also curb voting rights for the same reason. It is a form of modern day slavery. In America, I'm not sure any evil is caused by anything other than the dollar.

 

[mrs-b]

With all due respect I disagree. It isn't just political extremism...it is religious extremism at play here as well.
They are tied closely together unfortunately.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Just because you and I think a certain way doesn't mean all those who follow a certain religion (any religion) think that way. You are not typical of the religious Christian. The Church is against abortion so those who are religious would be against pro choice as well if one is religious and follows the Church. I mean sure you can pick and choose what you believe but those who are truly religious zealots are against a woman's right to choose because they feel abortion is murder.

You and I do not think that way because our thought processes are based in scientific facts whereas those who are religious do not base their thoughts in facts.

I stand by what I said before. Religion has been a major feature in historical conflicts and terrorism. The religious have murdered throughout history in the name of their g-d.

I do not think all religious people are evil but I also do not think religious people are better than those who are not religious, for example atheists. Far from it in fact. Some of the people I know with the worst behavior are those who claim to be religious. And some of the most kind are those who do not believe in any religion.

Sorry for my long rambling post. I am very disturbed by what is happening in this country and I do blame religion for this one at least in good part.

I understand your position, @missy. I've been hearing the Christian church pilloried all my life on a wide range of subjects, and Christians - mostly a fairly mild bunch - characterized over and over as evil extremists. These insults and accusations are in large part done with little accurate consideration or interaction with a broad selection of Christians. For those reasons, I thought long and hard before I made my previous post as I have no intension of subjecting myself to being this thread's whipping boy, or spending my time on PS defending my religious choices.

And yet, having been a member of the church all my life, what you're reflecting is simply not my experience. The extremism you're referring to also seems to be harnessed particularly to the US, where the cultural tides and tendencies tie religion and politics together. This is not the case everywhere. Perhaps it would behoove the US to give some thought as to why these things are so linked in this country. Yet, even here, there are large Christian groups that support every political position - enough to buck the common characterization of Christians as being all of one position.

I find lumping large groups of people together under one banner, then characterizing them as being the cause of all ills, both unfair and dangerous. I am fully aware of the shortcomings of my religious group - more so, I'm sure, than anyone not in that group who hasn't spent their entire life arguing within the group against some of the more bizarre and unsubstantiated positions held by said group. Treating all Christians as being the same is as heinous as doing it to any other group.

Personally, I trace this current catastrophe back to every Trump vote in 2016, and for that we, the people, are to blame.

What I'm more concerned about at this point is where we go from here. Changing the make up of the Supreme Court is the work of a lifetime, and one I doubt I'll ever see. Like you, I find this heartbreaking. But even worse - did you see this bit by Rachel Maddow? Not heartbreaking - terrifying.

Rachel Maddow Predicts 'Fetal Personhood' SCOTUS Case Will End Abortion Nationwide

“For them, the dam has burst,” she said of the justices. “What do you see in their behavior that would give you any reason to believe that they see a reason to stop?”

www.yahoo.com

 

[stracci2000]

I have long thought of myself as an agnostic.....but after some careful rethinking.....and I never thought I would say it........I am an atheist.
And world events have a lot to do with how I'm feeling right now.

 

[Matata]

I'm a Christian. An evangelical, conservative, fundamentalist Christian.

Evangelicals have worked for decades to distance themselves from fundamentalists. The differences between the two subsets of Christianity can be subtle but there are a few that stand out: Evangelicals are open to working with other sects/denominations; they do not interpret the Bible literally; they do not adhere to isolationist behaviors. Fundamentalists take a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible; subscribe to isolationist behaviors to shun what they see as corrupting influences of modern society and shun those who are sympathetic to or engage in those corrupting influences.

According to the tenets of each sect, one can be evangelical; one can be fundamentalist; one cannot be both. Fundamentalists do not consider people to be true Christians if they do not adhere completely to fundamentalist doctrine.

Pro choice is antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine and, accordingly, you would be shunned and cast out of a fundamentalist church.

In the other forum to which I belong there are evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe churches and church leaders are evil and not true Christians because they do not strictly adhere to literal Biblical text.

It's very confusing.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

The basic reasoning of Clarence Thomas rests in the legal principle that abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. have been erroneously decided previously on the principle that individuals have a right to privacy. According to the majority opinion is that these issues belong as issues to the States.

Wasn't California the first state to pass gay marriage laws? I wouldn't be concerned if I lived in California. Of course the gay marriage laws in other states will be overturned.

This is not about religion. It is about control. It is true that the religious right has worked to end abortion along with the Catholic church which also opposes contraception. Some people use any means to exert their wishes over others. Religion has been used this way. But politics has the real power. If people want to reinstate abortion, let them vote for reps in their states. Until we make abortion a National Right these issues are going to be with us for the foreseeable future.
I personally do not understand why people aways seem so concerned about poor black women and people of color. This is about all women, rich or poor, black or white. It will be inconvenient for some, costly for some, but we all share in the need for a national abortion right.

There is no doubt in my mind the legal briefs are already prepared for ending gay marriage, and some contraception. The best response I have read was on this forum. Oh what women can do if the unborn, from conception on is regarded as a person. Child tax credits, a dependent credit, support payments, and whatever else we can think of.

As Obama said a bunch of old politicians directing women's lives. The Supreme Court holds no wisdom for us all. It is a huge disappointment.

Annette

 

[Matata]

True, and the black and brown communities are disproportionately hit the hardest. Privileged in red states can take their daughters to blue states to obtain their abortion.

They cut off their noses to spite their faces didn't they? I think it's funny as heck that some whites are worried about becoming a minority and just ensured that it will happen. They failed to notice that the abortion rate is higher among Blacks/Hispanics/Asians than among whites.

 

[Matata]

This is not about religion. It is about control.

Religion and government are both about control.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

A bit off topic, but I recently read that by 2045 the white population will be in the minority.

Annette

 

[Calliecake]

Religion, government and control are the problem. I too disagree @mrs-b, Religion played a large part in Roe vs Wade being overturned. Think about it, if you believed otherwise would you be putting the word “camping” in your Facebook post. Using the word “camping” puts this in a negative, shameful light. I would help any woman to get to a safe abortion. I certainly wouldn’t be using the word camping. I would use the word abortion.

I worked next to a women’s health clinic that provided abortions. There were many “Christians” who held up their religious group signs, some also stated their political affiliation as they jumped up from their seats to get in the faces of the women who tried to enter. They said the most vile things to these women without knowing anything about them or their life circumstances. It was horrible to watch. They were awful people who showed not one ounce of empathy or compassion toward the women entering the clinic.

 

[telephone89]

I don’t know how people are thinking this isn’t related to religion. Only one religion even ‘believes’ in life at conception (note the quotes…). That specific belief is funding ALL of this. Muslims, Jews, buddhists, Satanists and pastafarians do not believe this. One, singular, specific, toxic mind set is pushing all of this.

 

[Arcadian]

What I'm seeing is the justices saying that these things are not in the constitution, therefore, the federal court should not be deciding on these things.

Yes, they're using this argument. And WHY did not Justice Thomas (I can say more here but I won't) did not make the case that interracial marriage is also not constitutional? well... we know why.

And while it dosen't mean these things will become illegal, volleying them back to the states to decide them does mean that some federal protections will be gone.

Over half of the court is self serving and hiding behind "constitutional law" to further the agenda of far right GOP. It will be up to everyone else to see that these things get codified as amendments.

At the state level; individual votes count way more.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

@kenny you and your husband are on my mind tonight
while the roe vs wade is taking up most of centre stage on the news tonight it also mentions gay marrage
i do not understand who else's business it is who married who and who loves who ?

 

[kenny]

...
i do not understand who else's business it is who married who and who loves who ?

It's the business of the most pious self-righteous religious Murkans.
Their god gets their knickers in a twist if you love the wrong person.

They're just trying to save me from their loving god sending me to burn in Hell for all eternity.

 

[Lookinagain]

Yes, they're using this argument. And WHY did not Justice Thomas (I can say more here but I won't) did not make the case that interracial marriage is also not constitutional? well... we know why.

I raised this point in the R v. W thread. The right to marry anyone you want, regardless of color/race stems from the same Amendment as the other rights we are talking about. Seems very hypocritical to me that he brings up rights like contraception and gay marriage, but not the decision (Loving v. Virginia) that allows his marriage.

 

[mrs-b]

Evangelicals have worked for decades to distance themselves from fundamentalists. The differences between the two subsets of Christianity can be subtle but there are a few that stand out: Evangelicals are open to working with other sects/denominations; they do not interpret the Bible literally; they do not adhere to isolationist behaviors. Fundamentalists take a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible; subscribe to isolationist behaviors to shun what they see as corrupting influences of modern society and shun those who are sympathetic to or engage in those corrupting influences.

According to the tenets of each sect, one can be evangelical; one can be fundamentalist; one cannot be both. Fundamentalists do not consider people to be true Christians if they do not adhere completely to fundamentalist doctrine.

Pro choice is antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine and, accordingly, you would be shunned and cast out of a fundamentalist church.

In the other forum to which I belong there are evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe churches and church leaders are evil and not true Christians because they do not strictly adhere to literal Biblical text.

It's very confusing.

@Matata -

I am familiar with all the subsets of Christianity and know all the definitions. Something I rarely speak about here (because it almost never comes up) is that I have a degree in theology. For various reasons, I was also the first woman asked to stand for ordination in Australia in my particular denomination. I declined and that role was eventually taken by a friend of mine, The pressure against her doing so was so intense she ultimately fell into a deep depression and killed herself. When I used to speak in various churches, I lived the experience of groups of people standing up and walking out because I was a woman in the pulpit. Believe me when I tell you, I am familiar with sexism in churches.

While I hear and acknowledge your definitions, I know from experience, training, and education that these are sometimes correct in practice, but generally wrong in theory - and also often in practice. I did grow up in a fundamentalist church - but not in the US, where fundamentalism means something very different to what it does in other countries. I supported a woman's right to choose back then, also, and was neither shunned nor asked to leave. My DH and I have lived here now for 20 years, and I believe we will ultimately leave, due to the general extremism we see here and the toxic mash up of religion and politics which is unlike anything we've seen before.

@Calliecake -

I've had the word abortion on my page so many times, doing so is a non issue. I shared one post, which was a meme copied from someone else (also a PSer and not a Christian, just btw) - so pls don't draw assumptions on this. On the other hand - and I share this because it might make you smile - a friend of mine, a popular Christian professor and talkshow commentator - started a questionnaire on his FB page asking which three people from the Bible we'd like to sit down with for dinner. The choices were 14 men and 3 women. I said Ethel Byrne, Fania Mindel and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and to get back to me when the choices were half men and half women (yeah - I'm pretty riled up these days). Interestingly, at least half the people who commented on the thread - and there were a lot - suggested women not listed in the choices, and a lot of them - men included - chose all women. The person who listed the post also came to my page and specifically 'liked' my camping meme. He ultimately took down the questionnaire because he agreed with me and felt it was sexist.

I am not saying that some religious organizations are not at the very center of this removal of women's rights. But they're not there alone and should not be treated as the *only* people pushing this retrograde step. Anyone threatened by women - or whose self esteem is so weak as to be afraid of anyone who is 'the other' - will fall into this category. What I *am* saying is that not all Christians are like this. What I'm asking for - because I know it to be true - is a level of accuracy in speech that removes the overarching labeling of all Christians as evil and extremist. If you cannot accept that, in a group of hundreds of millions, there is a wide range of differing opinions and practices, then you're exhibiting a huge level of convenient inaccuracy. If it's too hard to insert the word "some"- "Some Christians are extreme and cruel" - "Some Christians have championed the removal of women's rights" - "Some Christians are as ignorant and uneducated as a lot of other people who don't know the facts and figures about abortion and how it plays out in society, especially in those groups who lack access and funds" - then you're indulging in lazy rhetoric, and as someone with a heavy academic past, that makes my flesh creep, because lazy, indulgent rhetoric is the bedrock of hate speech and violence against specific groups. Has the church done that in the past? Obviously. And it's as wrong then as when it's done by any other group.

It's too much to ask people not from the Christian church to learn the difference between Christian theology and Christians themselves. They shouldn't have to and they're not going to and that's fine. But there *is* a difference - a huge, gaping gulf - between what Christianity is in principle and how we, as its would-be adherents - act it out. For that, as Christians, we should be asking the forgiveness of the world at large, and of God in particular. I believe this situation now, re a woman's right to choose, is one of those times. But *all* Christians? No.

To go any further on this would mean dragging out textbooks and citing Scripture, and I don't feel it's appropriate here. So I'm signing off on this thread. But do revisit the post I made quoting Rachel Maddow's comments. That's where I believe the next threat will eventuate and we need to gird our loins.

And as a friend of mine posted on FB on Friday - before you go to bed tonight, remember to wind your clocks back 50 years.

 

[Matata]

I have a degree in theology.

And in psychology or something similar right? I remember you posting about it in another discussion. You are a well educated and erudite individual. It saddens me greatly that what we have become here has so diminished the positivity and gratefulness you expressed upon gaining citizenship here. When you shared your essay with us, it reignited my appreciation for what I do have. Alas, my flame didn't last long, lol. Where ever you choose to ultimately live, I hope you find what you need to live a contented life.

 

[mrs-b]

And in psychology or something similar right? I remember you posting about it in another discussion. You are a well educated and erudite individual. It saddens me greatly that what we have become here has so diminished the positivity and gratefulness you expressed upon gaining citizenship here. When you shared your essay with us, it reignited my appreciation for what I do have. Alas, my flame didn't last long, lol. Where ever you choose to ultimately live, I hope you find what you need to live a contented life.

@Matata -

<3

Psychology and theology undergrad degrees. Masters degrees in developmental psych and dispute resolution (this one is actually through the law faculty, so is technically a law degree). I have two university medals and one Australasian medal - which was, in some part, why I was asked to stand for ordination. I was offered a PhD stipend and a small teaching position at a well known university in the US, but declined as it was time to do rather than perpetually learn, and I didn't want to have to travel regularly between the US and Australia as I have a fear of flying since being in an air accident in my late 20's. Curiously enough, I ended up living in the same city/metro area as the university where I was offered the PhD.

And I have to say, I still think longingly of doing another degree in international politics / conflict. If my myriad physical ailments don't take me off beforehand, I still might.

As far as relocating to Australia goes, my DH never took US citizenship, and so the plan was always to *probably* return to Australia at some point. And I've loved the vast majority of my experiences here and the people I've met. But I feel as tho the country changed 6 years ago and now the US is like a beautiful woman wearing a soiled dress. All she needs to do is to take it off, but she's been convinced that her nudity would be so much worse than the stains she so proudly wears.

And there you go - there's an example of hideously lazy rhetoric. So I am as bad as those I criticize and would be the first to admit it. To put it more succinctly, America is breaking my heart on a daily basis these days (which, of course, is how I know I love her) and I simply do not know where to go with it. My nature is to fight, but the battles seem to be piling up. In the end I'll probably join @missy, give all my money to animal welfare, and hope mankind is ultimately scrubbed from the planet, leaving the flora and fauna to take over.

 

[Matata]

To put it more succinctly, America is breaking my heart on a daily basis these days (which, of course, is how I know I love her) and I simply do not know where to go with it. My nature is to fight, but the battles seem to be piling up. In the end I'll probably join @missy, give all my money to animal welfare, and hope mankind is ultimately scrubbed from the planet, leaving the flora and fauna to take over.

Because I'm too lazy to expound on my own behalf, I'll simply +1 the above.

 

[Calliecake]

Does anyone know if anything can be done about the blatant lying under oath the last three justices said at their confirmation hearings?

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Does anyone know if anything can be done about the blatant lying under oath the last three justices said at their confirmation hearings?

disgusting

usually a jailable offencs if one of us mare mortles do it

 

[Matata]

Does anyone know if anything can be done about the blatant lying under oath the last three justices said at their confirmation hearings?

It would be difficult to prove they lied. None of the 3 newest stated they would uphold Roe v Wade. They stated they recognized it as long established law. Making misleading statements and avoiding giving straight answers became somewhat standard for SCOTUS nominees ever since Robert Bork was candidly hostile about civil rights decisions causing him to be soundly rejected in a bipartisan decision.

 

[Lookinagain]

Even if you could prove that they lied the only recourse is impeachment. They are all lawyers. They said what they needed to by giving recognition to precedent and state decisis without saying precisely that they would not overturn R v.W. Those that say they were lied to are smart enough to have known that.

 

[Jambalaya]

With all due respect…
The root of all evil. IMO

It's old, male, white politicians' interpretation of religion. Jesus preached love and kindness towards everyone, which includes women. It's human beings twisting religion for their own purposes which is the problem. I know discussion of religion is banned, but everyone here keeps blaming religion (in other words, I'm not the one who mentioned religion first!) It's the politicians and their twisted interpretation of Jesus's words, which were about love and kindness and acceptance toward all, including the poorest and the sickest. C-sections were available in Jesus's time and the Bible says nothing against them. I think that the real Jesus Christ, the human preacher, the one who actually existed - no idea if he was really the son of God - I think he would have loved trans people and gay people and welcomed all genders. The dude really did love everyone, including lepers. Even if some ancient text DID say that women mustn't have abortions, politicians today wouldn't have to act on it! Assign the blame where it lies: on the politicians and the people who voted for it.

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you @Matata and @Lookinagain, Every time I have some small glimmer of hope that this ruling or the judges can be undone, my hopes are dashed away.

The older I get, the more important it is to me to leave the world a better place. This week I feel like we have left young women with a steaming bag of trash.

@Gussie reading your post about your daughter asking to go to college out of state made me sad. My grandniece who is 8 years old asked me if I knew about the Uvalde shooting. All of this makes me feel sick. Our kids deserve so much better.

 

[missy]

Why gay marriage and contraception are not at the top of the list
From the NYT June 27, 2022

Good morning. After abortion, how is the Supreme Court likely to change American society next?​

The impatient, ambitious five​ ​

"

My colleague Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court, describes the five Republican-appointed justices besides Chief Justice John Roberts as “an impatient, ambitious majority.”​

They have largely rejected Roberts’s more cautious approach of deciding cases narrowly and shifting the law slowly. The five instead prefer to set American law as they believe it should be set, even when they must overrule longstanding precedent. To do otherwise, they believe, is dishonest.​

After the court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, one obvious question was: What other legal changes might soon be coming? Initial attention has focused on the possibility that the court may soon restrict L.G.B.T. rights, contraception access or interracial marriage. All those issues involve some of the same logic that led to the abortion decision, as both Justice Clarence Thomas and the three liberal justices pointed out in their writings accompanying the decision.​

But those are not actually the hot-button issues that the court is likely to consider next. In today’s newsletter, I want to focus on the divisive decisions that are more likely to come soon. One of those rulings could happen today; the court is scheduled to announce some of its final rulings of the term shortly after 10 a.m. Eastern.​

Kavanaugh’s position​ ​

The first reason to doubt that the court is on the verge of overturning the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, interracial marriage or contraception access comes straight from Friday’s abortion ruling. In a separate concurrence explaining his vote, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — one of the impatient, ambitious five — explicitly signaled that those other rights were safe.​

In his 12-page concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that he wanted to address “how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage.” He then listed four cases dealing with those issues, including the 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage. “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents,” Kavanaugh explained.​

Unless Kavanaugh changes his mind — or Roberts decides to overturn those precedents — there is no majority to do so. For now, only Thomas has said that he favors revisiting the earlier cases. “I don’t think there are five votes for overturning any of those decisions,” Adam Liptak said on a weekend episode of “The Daily.”​

The second reason to think that other divisive issues will come first is that the court has already announced many of the cases it will hear next year. They tend to involve other topics — namely affirmative action, election laws and business regulation.​

Affirmative action​ ​

It’s an issue that seems likely to define the court’s next term in the way that abortion did this term. The court has agreed to hear two cases, one challenging the use of race in admissions at a public university (the University of North Carolina) and one at a private university (Harvard).​

I have been writing about this subject for the past two decades, and university officials I’ve spoken with are far more worried that the court will outlaw their current admissions approach than they were during the run-up to previous Supreme Court cases. If that happens, the number of Black students at selective colleges seems especially likely to decline.​

The Harvard campus in March.Kayana Szymczak for The New York Times​

The core argument for affirmative action is simple: In a society where racism and racial inequities remain defining problems, ignoring race in admissions or hiring decisions is fundamentally unfair.​

Yet affirmative action — at least as it has typically been practiced in the U.S. — tends to be unpopular. When the policy appears on the ballot in state referendums, it usually loses, even in liberal states like California. (Poll questions, depending on their wording, point in contradictory directions.)​

One problem may be that traditional affirmative action has put nearly all of its focus on race, with little to no weight on economic class. That approach has probably hurt the policy’s support among many white, Asian and even Latino voters. Its thin popular support, in turn, would make it easier for conservative justices to ban a policy they have long opposed.​

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts once wrote.​

Is there any chance the court will stop short of outlawing affirmative action? Sure. Many corporate executives and military leaders support the policy, and they could plausibly sway the justices. But most court watchers consider that outcome improbable.​

In a 2003 ruling upholding affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — a more moderate Republican appointee — suggested that she thought the policy might no longer be necessary “25 years from now.” If the court scraps the policy in 2023, the current impatient, ambitious majority would be only five years ahead of O’Connor’s timetable.​

And two more​ ​

Two other contentious subjects on the court’s docket are election law and business regulation. On both, the court — including Roberts — has recently leaned strongly to the political right.​

Election laws. The court has already agreed to hear a case about whether Alabama can draw a congressional map that packs many Black voters into a single congressional district, effectively diluting their political power. About 27 percent of Alabama’s residents are Black, and the state has seven House districts.​

The court may also decide to hear a case that could limit the ability of state courts to review how state legislatures draw districts and otherwise oversee elections. Adam Liptak recently wrote an article that explains why the issue is so important — especially when many Republican legislators have signaled a willingness to overturn election results.​

Business regulation. Even before President Donald Trump’s three appointees shifted the court to the right, it tended to take a laissez-faire approach, limiting Congress’s ability to regulate corporate behavior. The current court may go even further, especially on climate policy, and rule that federal agencies cannot limit pollution unless Congress has given them specific authority to do so.​

The court will hear one case involving the Clean Water Act in October and will likely issue a ruling involving the E.P.A. this week. I’ll go into more detail on this subject once that ruling is announced.​

More on abortion​ ​

Anti-abortion activists are pushing more states to adopt bans and prohibit traveling for abortions, while opponents have pledged to fight so-called trigger laws in court. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only clinic in Mississippi, was at the center of the case that overturned Roe. It will close in a few days. In Opinion, Pamela Paul writes that America’s most exceptional trait is its lack of mercy. And Ross Douthat argues that abortion opponents have a longer-term battle to win. "

 

[missy]

It's old, male, white politicians' interpretation of religion

it's human beings twisting religion

Yes, exactly. Their interpretation of religion.
But in large part what do you think religion/the bible is? Humans wrote the bible.
A large part of the bible is a work of fiction written by men.

Apologies for continuing to discuss this topic. I am done discussing religion.
(as it is against the rules except in very general non specific terms)