These days, waking up to news about Alabama’s unhinged embryo ruling made me cringe in disbelief. The realization hit me hard – it’s never about protecting children; it’s always been about controlling women’s bodies. The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court has not only condemned women facing ectopic pregnancies to death but has also set a dangerous precedent for the future of reproductive rights.
The religious rhetoric embedded in this ruling is unsettling, showcasing a Christo-fascist agenda that seeks to punish women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ Americans. What’s more alarming is the slippery slope we are sliding down towards total abortion bans and the criminalization of birth control methods like the pill, IUDs, and Depo injections.… Continue reading
Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children, imperiling IVF. The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that frozen embryos are to be considered children has sent shockwaves throughout the reproductive rights community. This decision not only challenges the very foundation of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) but also raises ethical and legal questions that could have far-reaching implications.
The implications of this ruling are staggering. If a frozen embryo is considered a child, does that mean that every embryo stored in IVF clinics across the state is now legally a child? Can a woman claim these embryos as dependents on her taxes?… Continue reading
As I delve into the latest news surrounding Trump’s missed Supreme Court deadline to fight civil immunity from Jan. 6 lawsuits, I can’t help but feel a mix of frustration and disbelief at the circus that seems to constantly surround the former president. It’s apparent that Trump and his legal team are floundering, missing crucial deadlines and making critical mistakes that have serious legal consequences.
The fact that he failed to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court by the agreed-upon deadline speaks volumes about his current predicament. It seems like Trump’s legal strategy is falling apart at the seams, and he may be running out of tricks up his sleeve.… Continue reading
I have been following the recent news about John Oliver offering to pay Clarence Thomas $1 million a year if he resigns from the Supreme Court, and I must say, the reactions and conversations surrounding this topic have been nothing short of fascinating. The idea of the general public pooling their funds to essentially bribe a Supreme Court Justice to step down is both audacious and thought-provoking.
Many have expressed disbelief at the notion that a mere $1 million a year would be enough to entice Clarence Thomas to resign from his position on the bench. After all, he already enjoys a lucrative lifetime appointment, complete with all the perks and privileges that come with it.… Continue reading
As someone who values the principle of the separation of church and state, I am deeply troubled by the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court that cited the Bible in classifying fertilized eggs as children. This decision not only goes against the fundamental idea of keeping religion out of the legal system but also raises significant concerns about the erosion of reproductive rights and personal freedoms.
I find it alarming that a judicial body would refer to religious texts to justify a legal ruling, especially in a country that prides itself on the Constitution’s promise of freedom of religion. Are we now living in a theocratic dictatorship where religious beliefs dictate our laws?… Continue reading
interpretation? Yeah, that sounds like Hawaii rightly rejecting the Supreme Court’s gun nonsense.
It’s no surprise that Hawaii’s Supreme Court has had enough of the Supreme Court’s games. The highest court in the land has a serious legitimacy problem. It’s become a partisan circus, where justices twist themselves into positions to push their own agendas.
The idea of “originalism” sounds nice in theory, but when it comes to the real world, it falls apart. How can the Supreme Court argue whether someone attempting to start an insurrection is protected by the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause? It’s clear as day that oath breakers cannot hold office again, unless Congress says otherwise.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to disqualify Donald Trump from running for president has sparked controversy and disappointment among many Americans. It raises questions about the court’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and fulfilling its duty to make difficult decisions.
One of the main arguments made by those in favor of disqualifying Trump is that his actions on January 6th, when he incited a mob to attack the Capitol, constitute treason under the Constitution. Treason, as defined in the Constitution, includes “levying war” against the United States, which many argue Trump did by inciting the insurrection. However, the Supreme Court seems hesitant to interpret the Constitution in this way and hold Trump accountable for his actions.… Continue reading
As I sat glued to the live oral arguments of the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but feel a wave of nausea wash over me. The way these politicians manipulated the law, twisting and contorting it to suit their own agendas, was truly sickening. Whatever happened to the ideal of leaving things up to the states? Colorado Republicans made a decision that they simply didn’t want Trump on the ballot, and now they are trying to justify their actions under the guise of upholding states’ rights.
It’s ironic how these same politicians who claim to defend the right of states to choose how to handle issues like abortion are suddenly switching sides the moment a state chooses something they disagree with.… Continue reading
As I reflect on the recent news surrounding Trump’s Supreme Court argument, I can’t help but find it both perplexing and concerning. Legal experts have warned that this filing is a massive tactical blunder, filled with weak arguments that have already been picked apart. It’s astonishing to see just how flimsy these arguments are and how little substance they hold.
One thing that strikes me is the lack of actual legal arguments put forth by Trump’s team. Instead, we see a slew of statements that seem more designed to appeal to his base than to present a coherent legal case. Phrases like “Trump hating Judge” or “Presidential immunity” may rouse his supporters, but they do little to bolster his legal standing.… Continue reading
The Only Way Trump Stays on the Ballot Is if the Supreme Court Rejects the Constitution
As an engaged citizen who believes in the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law, I find it deeply disheartening to consider that the only way Donald Trump could stay on the ballot is if the Supreme Court rejects the Constitution. It seems unimaginable that the highest court in our land, entrusted with safeguarding our nation’s founding principles, would even entertain such a notion. However, recent developments and the tone of the court’s proceedings have left me with little hope that they will uphold the integrity of our Constitution.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood